# Prepping / Emergency Preparedness > General Emergency Preparedness >  Can we have this conversation?

## trax

There's a lot of concern about TSHTF scenarios and they usually come down to bug out or dig in. Food shortages leading to mobs roaming the streets willing to attack someone who has dug in, etc. My question is, how effective can people in that situation expect to be? Usually a mob/gang has one or two people who have mouthed off enough to take on some kind of leadership role? But are they truly qualified? I think as soon as one or two things go wrong, the mob will turn their back on their leaders anyway.

There's an old western, I think Audie Murphy played the lead, either him or Alan Ladd.Anyway, the main character is in this town and he's a legendary killer and everyone in this town knows he's there to kill someone, but no one knows who his victim is supposed to be.A big part of the story is all these different people who each think they're the target. Finally, a couple of people get the whole town riled up and a big mob approaches him, he's sitting on the porch of the place he's staying, drinking coffee, and they stop just off the porch and tell they're going to drag him out and lynch him or some such thing. He stands up, still sipping his coffee and tells them come on ahead and do it, basically that there's no way he can get all of them, but....he can get _some_ of them. Pretty soon people start remembering that they've got chickens to feed or wood to split etc etc and start wandering off. 

I think that's about what it takes to deal with that kind of mentality, but you better be willing to mean what you say and back it up. Communities developed millenia ago out of a need for mutual protection from other predators, animal and human. Gangs form for the same basic reason....fear. Thoughts? Uncle Remy, you going to throw something in here?

----------


## ryaninmichigan

There is truth to what you say. I remember one time Jay Leno had Chuck Norris on, He asked if the audience rushed the stage if he could take all of them out. Chuck responded no but I would feel real bad for the first 5 or 6. I think this is the right way to think. You can have 20 or 30 civilians outside your house. Every one is tough until you poke a hole 5 or 6…

----------


## Ole WV Coot

A mob is about as organized as a Chinese fire drill. I got stuck in '68 at night when the riot broke out in DC. I just stood on the corner waiting for a bus(I hoped). I watched liquor stores, pawn shops etc being looted and nobody bothered me until a bunch of 17-18yr old kids didn't like my lack of a tan, they ran their mouths I didn't say anything just picked out the biggest "leader" if you could call him that and when they got to me I gave him a backhand across the throat with a simple old knife hand. Worked great, I didn't get anything but a lot of mouth and a happy ending for me. Cut off the snake's head and he ain't gonna do much.

----------


## crashdive123

No arguments with that Trax.  I believe that for the most part gangs form out of fear.  That fear may manifest itself in many different forms, but after forming they may have a sense of security, or belonging, or whatever they were seeking to try and wrestle with their fears.  I also believe that there are a lot more good people than bad people in the world.  When like minded "good" people band together to fight evil I believe they will prevail.  The quote (there are many versions) "All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good ment to do nothing." is very true (((((hope I'm not sounding too much like Spud......gotta go clear those firing lines))))

----------


## remy

I think it depends on the motivations of the mob, and not the mob itself.
Look at Africa for example...mobs can be pretty determined to do damage.
Another interesting example, although this mob was organized, is the take down of one of the most advanced civilization of its time by a 180 men and 27 horses lead by Francisco Pizzaro.

What this means, is that the success of a mob, or the success of the opposing force(s), rests on a very fragile set of "coincidences".
The Inca force was formidable. More than 80,000 warriors.

One of the most famous "mob" in American history, was lead by Geronimo. He fought for over 25 years both united states troops and Mexican troops.

I do not view mobs as simplistic conglomerates of disorganized men...i view them as forces.
Forces can be disorganized, and still overcome anything that stands in their way. The motivation behind the force is of great importance. But a mob can also be extremely organized, even though the definition of the word itself leads us to believe otherwise.

Have you ever watched how birds fly in groups ?
It could seam extremely disorganized and chaotic, a giant cloud moving and swooping, each bird seemingly following a strange current. Yet, this mass is organized. Not in its individuals, but in its relationship to the sky...and most importantly, to one another.

Each mob must be evaluated. And further more, the reasons for the mob to be.
Your example speaks of a mob facing a passive threat. The psychology behind it is pretty evident. But it cannot compare to mobs forming for extreme conditions such as famine for example. 1789 france, is probably the quintessential symbol of a determined mob.

The psychology behind a mob depends on its situation, its motivation, and its nature.
If the individuals within the mob know one another...which would suggest emotional ties and hierarchy, and therefore a certain organization, this mob will be affected by the death of one or more of its members. But if the mob is of strangers, of an explosion of circumstances and coincidences fueled by a strong motivation, then that mob will most likely not be affected the same way by losses.

Of course, each individual will also determine the cohesion and extent of the power within the group. Their experience, their conditioning, their education, their beliefs...are all factors to be considered. A Los Angeles street gang or "mob" will have different motivations than Chinese students. Different back grounds...And in this light, i doubt a street gang-member would have stood in front of a tank. And i doubt the Chinese student would shoot a 14 year old for no obvious reason.

The idea here is in ideals.
I was faced by a mob once...13 or 14 individuals in the project i grew up in.
The psychological game as with your example worked and a fight was avoided, we even became friends afterwards. But their motivation was not coherent.
I never faced a group watching their children die of hunger or diseases. I never faced a group with religious motivations, or idealistic goals.

----------


## remy

Furthermore...


We must realize, that a mob forms to increase the individuals chances of survival, since when a large group is involved, it reduces the risks to each member.
This mechanism comes from our ancestors...originally it was an "anti-predator" behavior. And in most cases, the mob will view the opposing force as a predator. Something "big" and "menacing" we must defend against by attacking it in numbers.

Today we have "smart mobs".
A coherent and intelligent mob. The emergence of the "smart mob" is said to have appeared recently, but as my examples show throughout history, the "smart mob", in my view, has been around for a while.

We are once again slightly thinking of scenarios involving a major break down of social understandings. But no matter what the scenario would be, the "smart mob" is a lot more evident today than ever. Gangs are "smart mobs" for example...The time of angry pitch fork  wilding and torch swinging masses is of the past. In your scenarios, you will most likely have to face a smart mob.
Maybe not trained ex-military with eotechs, miniguns and sound tactics (although gangs nowadays send members to the marines to acquire tactical training), but not chaotic fear driven unstable groups either.

----------


## Beo

Remy,
I disagree, Geronimo did not lead a "mob" he was a warrior from his tribe holding out to his beliefs with a party od fellow warriors which he led in hit and run raids on the U.S. Cav. which is a big difference between a gang or large group of idiots running amuck. And what is the difference between a mob and a riot? Both set out for the same end result although the cause may be different. Anyway disorganized 'mobs' or groups will fall short, they always have. Its the organized ones you need to watch out for. With the disorganized group there is always some blowhard in the back smacking his lips and a bunch of idiots following his rear-leadership, but the organized groups have set missions to accomplish, the leader knows what he wants done and is not just shouting to take this and that or do this and that or just blowing his wind, he cool and decisive in what has to be done to get the results he wants, this is (the organized mob) is the group to watch out for.
Other than the Geronimo thing I agree with you though.
Beo,

----------


## Canadian-guerilla

i think anyone who plans on digging in should have outside defense plans

for someone in the city, find some high ground
whether it's in the attic or an abandoned house across the street
just sitting in the dark with a candle, being afraid to move around and/or make any noise
and blowing out the candle at the first outside sound is not a defense plan

and for someone in a open rural area
talk a walk around your property/perimeter
look at your home/property from an enemies POV
how close could the enemy get to your house with fair cover
#1 target may be the house, but what else is valuable outside the house
horses-chickens-ATV's-motorbikes
if the bad guy(s) think your house is too well defended
they could always try to get some easy transportation and move on to the next target

----------


## trax

Remy,

I disagree with you on a couple of points. The first one that Beo pointed out, the men with Geronimo were trained warriors. A group of people in and of itself does not constitute a mob or a gang. I'm also pretty sure that Pizzaro et al had a few advantages on their side of the people that they destroyed. Firearms, disease, nevertheless..... The movie 300 showed how 300 Spartans took on a million man Persian army, but they again were 300 trained warriors so I wouldn't think they constitute a mob.

As far as the idea of a "smart mob" I get a sense that the phrase is something of an oxymoron, but giving it it's due, I don't think that's what people will be dealing with in those SHTF situations. Those people forming mobs will be doing so out of desperation and near panic. The motivation of the mob is essential as you pointed out, but people tend to lose their motivation in a hurry if they see their leaders go down. That's been just as true of trained military groups at times in the past as it has of disorganized, panicked mobs. Just my opinion.

Just want to add this little bit because C-G posted while I was typing. The bad guys, ask Beo on this, are always going to go for the easy target. It's like car theft, if you have the "club" or whatever, they'll go for the car that doesn't. There's ways to get past the club, but it's still easier for the thief if he doesn't have to. So yeah, any defensive plan is better than none for those hunkering down, but I can guarantee nobody's ever gonna find me hiding in the attic with a candle.

----------


## ryaninmichigan

I would define a mob as, a group of strangers thrust together not by choice, but out of fear of the given circumstance. Not a collective force with one objective but a group of people with there own objective. What you faced was a gang of 13-14. Not a mob.

----------


## trax

I don't know that I'd try to define things too much, especially since I wasn't in any of the situations we've talked about thus far. I know from experience that if you can personalize a threat to one or two individuals, in a gang or a mob or whatever you want to call them, they'll back down (like the western movie/Chuck Norris examples) I also know that "mobs" can have a broader scope than what we've looked at here so far, I'm thinking of the screaming hordes that Hitler could whip up into a frenzy with his speeches in pre-war Germany. He managed to focus their fears onto specific targets and the people were hungry/bitter/desperate enough to buy into his rationale. There's a mob leader if ever I saw one.

Overall though, I think in the situation that I first put forward, an individual can utlize the mob member's fears to his own advantage and I think that's key.

----------


## Rick

When I hear all the yelling and screaming outside I'll just tell them they have the wrong house. 

"Down the street two blocks, fellahs." (pointing)
"Huh? Oh, sorry. Come on guys."
"Sorry for the noise, mister."
"No problem."

----------


## trax

I pictured you more as a "you kids quieten down or I'm coming out there" kind of guy followed by a general mumbling and shuffling of feet as they disperse.

----------


## remy

Your understanding of a mob is limited then.
"A large group of idiots running amuck"...why not.
If Geronimo was doing his thing today...we would call him a terrorist. And his "warriors", a group of dogs indeed running amuck.
As for the romanticization of Geronimo's "warriors" being "trained", i don't think so.


Pizzaro had indeed few advantages...hence "coincidences". But the motives remain the same. Big fat force against few. To me, the difference of which side is called a mob rests on the side of your fence. 

Again, you are making the assumption that "desperation" and "fear" is a bad thing that in the end will be the demise of the force at play. You are wrong. As for the leader going down and "the bad guys" loosing their motivations...well...wouldn't that be nice if it worked every-time. I don't think i need examples of this. 

If you want to only view mobs as disorganized idiots (and some probably are)...like i said...why not. But the fact is, that mobs, and mob mentality, is a very complicated happening. In fact, not two mobs are alike, since they are all composed of different personalities, histories, motivations, needs, beliefs...etc.
Some are composed of strangers, some are not.
Some are organized, some are not.
Some have leaders, some do not.
It depends...

----------


## remy

I don't think i am being clear...

A mob, represents a certain understanding of a force.
It is the "form" of one kind of force.

Our understanding of this force we call mob, is mostly represented in our culture by a "disorganized" group of individuals with a certain intention we perceive opposes our safety, although it can encompass other realms such as beliefs. The reason this mob banded together, is of the same nature...it is for them to feel safer. It is for most species, a way to minimize risks.

This form of force, is often seen as "disorganized", because it is made of individuals coming  together for purposes that align with risk calculations (The objective is shared by all...survive or survive better). Calculation, as i have said before, gives birth to fear. It is because each individual calculates its place within the mob, that fear emanates.
In some cases, this calculation is trumped by the motivation, the needs, the beliefs or other processes shared by the group...creating a more coherent mob.
This process is often ignited by a leader...but can also appear by itself.

Now, a mob can also arise from a place where the calculation of risks is not the first factor. This is called a "smart mob". This mob will band together for motivations and beliefs greater than any risks. Although this mob can appear disorganized for lack of discipline or tactical knowledge or who knows what, this mob is in fact very organized "spiritually" and / or psychologically...since it already knows that with numbers, comes a certain advantage, a certain power.

This mob is often fueled by political, religious, ideological or spiritual ideas...and can revert at any moment to the "first mob"...realizing suddenly, that the idea is not worth the risk (that was a bad idea!).
But, it can also move on to a greater force, when faced with extreme adversity. This happens when the individuals within the mob loose their individuality for the "salvation" of the "specie" (it is an instinct).
Let us remember, that all of these processes are based on very simple instincts...but that our mind has transformed and distorted them into weird concepts and cultural oddities.

----------


## Ole WV Coot

I know I'm gonna hate myself for this but in my humble opinion being self imprisoned for two days in DC to keep my rear from looking like raw hamburger and observing from the top of a microwave tower. I saw nothing except looting in the order of liquor stores, bars, pawn shops, fancy clothing stores. Looters fighting among themselves over jewelry, booze, clothing etc. Nothing that could be used because their own apartment buildings were torched. I watched men, women & children strip and try on clothing, one man falling on a glass window was used as a bridge with his throat cut. The police force was ORDERED not to get involved. They stood and watched. Strictly mob mentality and no leaders from the front or rear of the pack. Second night all homeless people were forced toward PA Ave. Gas stations were ordered  closed. I watched gangs of kids, none over 12 or so dump gasoline on homeless folks or drunks and torch them just for the hell of it. Anyone that can defend this action or rationalize it would fit in with that pack of animals, not humans. By the way TRAX you started this and are back up for adoption.

----------


## Sam Reeves

Demographics

There were no riots in Iowa when the floods came. There was no riots in San Diego when the forests fires came. When the levees broke in New Orleans TSHTF. In Los Angles TSHTF because of a court case.

Find the common denominator. The math isn't that hard.

----------


## Ole WV Coot

> Demographics
> 
> There were no riots in Iowa when the floods came. There was no riots in San Diego when the forests fires came. When the levees broke in New Orleans TSHTF. In Los Angles TSHTF because of a court case.
> 
> Find the common denominator. The math isn't that hard.


No it's not. I get wound up too easy I guess but TRAX is still up for adoption. :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## awfoxden

in my opinion going back to the original scenerio i think you will be facing somthing much more threatening than a mob of people looking for food.  i think you iwill be minding your own business and then bang!  no warning a group of people well armed will use impromptu military tactics i.e. sniping and small unit actions to eliminate a potential threat prior to invading a house to look for food.  if people are truly hungrey all bets are off.

----------


## Ridge Wolf

"This form of force, is often seen as "disorganized", because it is made of individuals coming together for purposes that align with risk calculations (The objective is shared by all...survive or survive better). Calculation, as i have said before, gives birth to fear. It is because each individual calculates its place within the mob, that fear emanates."

Remy, can you expand on this? I kind of follow what you mean but then, if the individual 'calculates' his place within the mob, how does fear emanate? Is it fear that something will happen to him or fear of individual failure? I don't understand that aspect of what you have said.

----------


## trax

Off topic on my own thread, but...Remy, I don't understand why you'd think that the men with Geronimo were untrained. Indian warriors trained their entire lives, first off, living off the land was entirely natural to them. They usually begain their serious warrior training around the age of ten. Self-discipline was essential.They trained in stealth movement, camouflage, and how to kill with multiple weapons. The Apaches even had their own close grappling hand to hand combat system. It was learning to fight the way the Indians did that made America successful against Great Britain in the war of Independence. (Well that's not the only factor but it's a big one)

The fact that Geronimo and his men managed to maintain a running war against two armies at the same time (US & Mexico) is hardly a romantic notion.

----------


## trax

> By the way TRAX you started this and are back up for adoption.



What??????  :EEK!:   :EEK!:  DAD!!! Nooooooooo!!! :Frown:  :Frown:  Quick someone close the thread before Dad throws my gear out the front door!

----------


## remy

Trax...
Yes, they were hunter / gatherers, they knew the land. 
What i mean is that (and it is on topic because of this) to both armies US and Mexico, they were "untrained". They did not fight a conventional war...They were UNTRAINED, which made them FREE to employ all of their resources.

Untrained is not a negative...to the contrary.
Untrained means wild, unconventional, unpredictable...and yes, the trained military learned from them.

Untrained pertains to mobs.
They too are wild, unconventional, and unpredictable.
Remember also the way Armies of the world use to fight at that time...they were certain protocols. A code of conduct. Rules. Soldiers were trained.
Does that make sense ?

Ridge...
The calculation depends on the individual.
It can be the calculation of personal harm...but it can also be the calculation of the individual's position within the herd. This position is mostly based on power or "personal power", but it can also be the calculation of an intellectual position.
The individual might start to question the idea itself, and calculate the risks against the idea. If i start calculating my chances of survival, i might start fearing possible outcomes yes ?
The problem here, is that the primary reason an individual will join a mob, IS a calculation to start with...i.e. in numbers, i have a better chance to survive, to get away with it, to not be singled out...etc.
In other words, fear, is almost always the initial motivation.

This fear can be, and most often is...fear of lacking.
Coot brings out this happening in his post about looters. Thousand of years of this fear, primarily the fear of lacking food, safety, power (represented today in objects such as electronics, cars, fancy clothes) etc...As long as some will be lacking, and some will be bathing in "too much", the have not will be opportunistic in their behavior. And what better way to do this than hidden in the middle of a mob, where the risks of getting caught are minimized.

But maybe we must understand violence...as whispered by Coot in his reference to some being animals.
Is nature "violent" ?

Wild and violent are not synonymous. 
...Man is violent but not wild, unless he is primitive (Geronimo?), and only for a very few...the lion is wild, but not violent.
The term "wild" is synonymous with "free" (untrained), it is why what is "civilized" is neither wild nor free (lol), but this doesn't prevent it to possess many different sorts of dysfunction all more remarkable than the next.

So the question becomes, Are the conflicts animals participate in, to the death, containing a violent character ?
If we consider that violence is a trait of rapport between individuals, if we define it as something that exudes an aggressive form to an action put in place by an individual towards an other, then yes, nature is this ensemble of organized violence.

If i take a step back, and if i want to see that this organization of life consuming other lives is the only existing and perceptible condition on which all traces of life rests, here, i find myself saying it is beautiful, since without this law, this principle, nothing would exist but a massive desert.

I dare believe that Man, not in its entirety but in the presence of rare existing individuals, living today, or having lived since thousands of years, is the first animal that thought of, imagined, life functioning under a principle that is completely different...non-violence. To this day, non-violence (i talk here about the Christ's and not Ahimsa or Gandhi) must be declared "against-nature"...the world, our environment, does not authorize its explosion, its release in order to spark possibilities under laws not yet birthed by nature.

----------


## Sam Reeves

> Trax...
> Yes, they were hunter / gatherers, they knew the land. 
> What i mean is that (and it is on topic because of this) to both armies US and Mexico, they were "untrained". They did not fight a conventional war...They were UNTRAINED, which made them FREE to employ all of their resources.
> 
> Untrained is not a negative...to the contrary.
> Untrained means wild, unconventional, unpredictable...and yes, the trained military learned from them.
> 
> Untrained pertains to mobs.
> They too are wild, unconventional, and unpredictable.
> ...


The Indians were untrained because they were without formal training and probably lack the skills to become properly trained. The American's whipped the British not because they learned to fight like the Indians but because they eventually refused to fight a war of attrition with the British. The Brits could always form a longer line of troops.




> Ridge...
> The calculation depends on the individual.
> It can be the calculation of personal harm...but it can also be the calculation of the individual's position within the herd. This position is mostly based on power or "personal power", but it can also be the calculation of an intellectual position.
> The individual might start to question the idea itself, and calculate the risks against the idea. If i start calculating my chances of survival, i might start fearing possible outcomes yes ?
> The problem here, is that the primary reason an individual will join a mob, IS a calculation to start with...i.e. in numbers, i have a better chance to survive, to get away with it, to not be singled out...etc.
> In other words, fear, is almost always the initial motivation.
> 
> This fear can be, and most often is...fear of lacking.
> Coot brings out this happening in his post about looters. Thousand of years of this fear, primarily the fear of lacking food, safety, power (represented today in objects such as electronics, cars, fancy clothes) etc...As long as some will be lacking, and some will be bathing in "too much", the have not will be opportunistic in their behavior. And what better way to do this than hidden in the middle of a mob, where the risks of getting caught are minimized.


If a feller joins a mob it is because he miscalculated.




> But maybe we must understand violence...as whispered by Coot in his reference to some being animals.
> *Is nature "violent"* ?


Yes.





> ]I dare believe that Man, not in its entirety but in the presence of rare existing individuals, living today, or having lived since thousands of years, is the first animal that thought of, imagined, life functioning under a principle that is completely different...non-violence.


Cows were here before we were and they ain't violent.


> To this day, non-violence (i talk here about the Christ's and not Ahimsa or Gandhi) must be declared "against-nature"...the world, our environment, does not authorize its explosion, its release in order to spark possibilities under laws not yet birthed by nature.


Anything that is a rebellion against nature is evil.

----------


## trax

SR "and then is heard no more; it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. ..."---Shakespeare

I'm trying (I'm not sure why) to assure you gentlemen that those warriors and not just Apache warriors, had very formal training. What skills would they be lacking to get formal training?

----------


## nell67

> No it's not. I get wound up too easy I guess but TRAX is still up for adoption.


TRAX IS NOT up for adoption,I've laid claim to him already!!!!!!!!!!! :Big Grin:

----------


## trax

> TRAX IS NIT up for adoption,I've laid claim to him already!!!!!!!!!!!


babe, you just called me a nit, I think she meant not you guys...or I hope so, and the adoption thing, well I kinda adopted Coot as my Dad cuz I like his style, but he's ditching me ((shuddering sob))

But hey! You can comfort me!

----------


## nell67

> babe, you just called me a nit, I think she meant not you guys...or I hope so, and the adoption thing, well I kinda adopted Coot as my Dad cuz I like his style, but he's ditching me ((shuddering sob))
> 
> But hey! You can comfort me!


 Sorry about the nit thing darling,trying to type around the grandson and it isn't so easy,and you KNOW I will comfort you anyway you want....

----------


## trax

I should probably blush for the benefit of anyone reading here, but..nahhhh, thanks honey.

----------


## Sam Reeves

> SR "and then is heard no more; it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. ..."---Shakespeare


Embrace reality or live a lie.




> I'm trying (I'm not sure why) to assure you gentlemen that those warriors and not just Apache warriors, had very formal training. What skills would they be lacking to get formal training?


They were trained to sneak around and attack people from behind in order to steal their things. They were never trained to be warriors. They were never taught to conquer an army just a weaker enemy. The fall under the same category as Alqeada and the Viet Cong. 

Now back to your fairytale about Indian warriors in Freetraxistan.

----------


## trax

As usual, your stupidity is only matched by your undying arrogance. For starters, sneaking around killing your enemies is warfare, smartboy, don't believe me? Ask a sniper.

And if that's all that Indians could do, how did Red Cloud manage to force the US army to abandon three forts in his territory which he subsequently burned to the ground after they left?

...and what happened to George Custer? 2000 Sioux and Cheyenne managed to sneak up on the 7th Cavalry and steal their things?

...and why is the US army's capture of Geronimo considered the most expensive undertaking in their history?

...and how did 85 Mohawk warriors stop 1700 American troops from landing in Ontario in the War of 1812
...Sneak around and steal from who? The million or so invaders who were stealing their country? 

Oh yeah, and it's a good thing those sneak thieves were willing to help your great great grandfolks, or they would have all starved to death on the Atlantic seaboard

These are facts, not anything from any fairy tale world, certainly not from the fairy tale world of "being white must make everyone else inferior to me" 

Ohhhhhh that's right, I forgot, all great men ARE bigots. Let's see, does that include Jesus Christ? Mohatma Gandhi? 

You're a sad man.

----------


## wareagle69

nim wit dim wit nit wit? isn't the search for osama the most expensive in history, shoot wait till they have to look for me, sam i see ya biting fishing and nibbling hows that working out for ya.

----------


## trax

You could be right on that WE, but at the time it was written the authors had used this formula that was kind of a cost/benefit analysis, what resources were thrown into it for what accomplished? Based on that it cost more than the wars did, and the US has seen a few wars.

----------


## Ridge Wolf

Ok.. thanks.

----------


## Ole WV Coot

Here I go again. Nell you can keep him for awhile and if I remember correctly the Apache were taught almost from birth. If a child crawled toward a fire he wasn't stopped, he got burned and learned from that moment on didn't have to be told. They were conditioned to live in a harsh area where you learned to be "more animal" than the animal to survive. No mercy, their reward was to live another day. The VC improvised which kinda scared some people. Their tunnel system scared a lot of Americans but not all. We have men that worked in mines 3' high and I could touch each side at the same time a mile or so under so we could beat them at their own game. We had our hands tied, but like the Apache it sure is tough to whip a dog in his own back yard. If you are allowed to fight their way and forget you're "civilized" you have a chance. otherwise you ain't nothing but a short memory.

----------


## Rick

Custer's famous last words: "Indians? If there's Indians at the Little Big Horn I'll stand right there and let 'em shoot me." 

Custer's famous last words: "They want a fight? I'll turn this place into a cemetery!"

Custer's famous last words: "Let's see...it was one if by land....no, that's not right. Two if by land. Dang it! Anyone know what the signal was?" 

Custer's famous last words: "It's point, squeeze, bang. Point, squeeze, bang. Can't you do anything right?"

Custer's famous last words: "#*%! This has got to be against some kind of treaty!"

----------


## remy

_"The Indians were untrained because they were without formal training and probably lack the skills to become properly trained."_
Sam.

What ?
I know people here are smart enough to realize that this is NOT what i meant.
But i guess...you are a good representation of the views and the understanding of the "white man" of the time, concerning what and who native Americans were. They were "untrained", because they did not want to become like "you"...
As for lacking skills to become "properly trained", it is the opposite...they had too many skills to become "properly tamed".


_"If a feller joins a mob it is because he miscalculated."_
Sam.

Why not.


_"Cows were here before we were and they ain't violent."_
Sam.

lolll...You think of violence as Man often does...simplistically. I said, Man, is the first animal that thought of, imagined, life functioning under a principle that is completely different. I doubt cows think about concepts and principles yes ?
You are here confusing violence as a principle of nature, with the role of preys and predators within this principal. A cow is a prey, and it has many predators...the rapport between the two is by nature...violent.

_"Anything that is a rebellion against nature is evil."_
Sam.

Then The Christ is evil by your definition.
Along with a very few other men...
It is fascinating to think that nature, which we spend so much time defending, and therefore the principle organizing it...violence...could be abandoned for other possibilities.

----------


## Canadian-guerilla

> They were trained to sneak around and attack people from behind in order to steal their things. They were never trained to be warriors. They were never taught to conquer an army just a weaker enemy. The fall under the same category as Alqeada and the Viet Cong.



you've been watiching too many anti-indian westerns from the 40's and 50's
IMO, the Viet Cong were one of the most formidable guerrilla forces of this century

do you really think there are " play fair " rules in warfare - no kicking/hair-pulling

_anything to win_

----------


## Sam Reeves

> As usual, your stupidity is only matched by your undying arrogance. For starters, sneaking around killing your enemies is warfare, smartboy, don't believe me? Ask a sniper.


By that standard every decent deer hunter is warrior




> And if that's all that Indians could do, how did Red Cloud manage to force the US army to abandon three forts in his territory which he subsequently burned to the ground after they left?
> 
> ...and what happened to George Custer? 2000 Sioux and Cheyenne managed to sneak up on the 7th Cavalry and steal their things?


Custer should have used some recon. His folly doesn't equate the nomads being great warriors




> ...and why is the US army's capture of Geronimo considered the most expensive undertaking in their history?


Heck, what about Osoma.




> ...and how did 85 Mohawk warriors stop 1700 American troops from landing in Ontario in the War of 1812


To be honest I'm not familial with this event.



> ...Sneak around and steal from who? The million or so invaders who were stealing their country?


The Indians were a nomadic people who never settled anything for more than 400 years. Some of the land was bought most of it was took. Life isn't fair.




> Oh yeah, and it's a good thing those sneak thieves were willing to help your great great grandfolks, or they would have all starved to death on the Atlantic seaboard


I guess that is what happens when you send a bunch of merchants into the wilderness. In this case some of my ancestors stole a bunch of seeds the Indians had buried. What do you want me to say?




> These are facts, not anything from any fairy tale world, certainly not from the fairy tale world of "being white must make everyone else inferior to me"


This is your assumption about me. 




> Ohhhhhh that's right, I forgot, all great men ARE bigots. Let's see, does that include Jesus Christ? Mohatma Gandhi?


Well, Jesus was definitely a bigot and is considered an anti-semite by todays standards. What was so great about Gandhi?




> You're a sad man.


I'm a very happy man.

----------


## Sam Reeves

> sam i see ya biting fishing and nibbling hows that working out for ya.


biting fishing and nibbling? Is that some slang for something?

----------


## wareagle69

read your earlier posts and figure it out show your as smart as you think you are..

----------


## Sam Reeves

> read your earlier posts and figure it out show your as smart as you think you are..


Nowhere have I implied to be an expert on anything.

It is silly to consider some of the most primitive people in the world to be "warriors". One on one I doubt they would have stood much of a chance with any other soldier in the world at the time. Europeans quickly took control of the Americas because it was like taking candy Away from a baby. 

My eight year old daughter can shoot a BB gun and is learning basic Karate from her mother. Is she also a warrior?  :Big Grin:

----------


## Sam Reeves

> _"The Indians were untrained because they were without formal training and probably lack the skills to become properly trained."_
> Sam.
> 
> What ?
> I know people here are smart enough to realize that this is NOT what i meant.
> But i guess...you are a good representation of the views and the understanding of the "white man" of the time, concerning what and who native Americans were. They were "untrained", because they did not want to become like "you"...
> As for lacking skills to become "properly trained", it is the opposite...they had too many skills to become "properly tamed".


That's not what I meant at all. The Indians were untrained because they were basically a stone age people using primitive and ineffective means of warfare. They were a pest not a threat.





> _"If a feller joins a mob it is because he miscalculated."_
> Sam.
> 
> Why not.


When has a mob ever been right?





> _"Cows were here before we were and they ain't violent."_
> Sam.
> 
> lolll...You think of violence as Man often does...simplistically. I said, Man, is the first animal that thought of, imagined, life functioning under a principle that is completely different. I doubt cows think about concepts and principles yes ?
> You are here confusing violence as a principle of nature, with the role of preys and predators within this principal. A cow is a prey, and it has many predators...the rapport between the two is by nature...violent.


I haven't confused anything. Nature is violent. Somehow we have forgotten that over the course of a thousand years. We were probably reprogrammed by religion which is probably why some here seem to admire the simple life of a primitive people untouched by a foreign religion. (Indians)
Personally I consider anything that kills out of the order of it's food chain to be violent. 




> _"Anything that is a rebellion against nature is evil."_
> Sam.
> 
> Then The Christ is evil by your definition.
> Along with a very few other men...
> It is fascinating to think that nature, which we spend so much time defending, and therefore the principle organizing it...violence...could be abandoned for other possibilities.


More Europeans have died in the name of Religion than anything else except maybe invasions by Mongolian hordes. I suspect religion has a tendency to be evil while wearing a mask of holiness.

----------


## Sam Reeves

Wow. Ya'll are really going to dogpile me on this one.




> you've been watiching too many anti-indian westerns from the 40's and 50's


Nope. I read.



> IMO, the Viet Cong were one of the most formidable guerrilla forces of this century


No, what that proved was that politic ans make for lousy generals.




> do you really think there are " play fair " rules in warfare - no kicking/hair-pulling
> 
> _anything to win_


Like I said politicians make for lousy generals.

----------


## ryaninmichigan

> By that standard every decent deer hunter is warrior



A lot of deer hunters helped win our freedom from the most powerful army of the time..

----------


## Sam Reeves

> A lot of deer hunters helped win our freedom from the most powerful army of the time..


You mean soldiers who also hunted deer. Most of the Revolutionary's were lead by decorated ex-military officers. Some were ex-military themselves.

----------


## ryaninmichigan

negative. most were farmers. your an *** hole here to casue trouble. Lead is the the key word..

----------


## Sam Reeves

> You mean soldiers who also hunted deer. Most of the Revolutionary's were *lead by decorated ex-military officers*
> 
> * Some* were ex-military themselves.





> negative. *most* were farmers. your an *** hole here to casue trouble. *Lead* is the the key word..


Isn't that what I said. They were LEAD to battle and SOME were ex-military.

Am I a A-hole for telling it the way it really was? Maybe you are an A-hole for basically repeating what I said.

----------


## crashdive123

> Am I a A-hole for telling it the way it really was? Maybe you are an A-hole for basically repeating what I said.


A few points here.  As far as telling it the way it really was - you rarely do that, but rather spout some gibberish that fits your view of the world.  Secondly, you seem to evoke an emotional response from quite a few people, did you ever think it might be you.  Lastly, the possibility of anybody being an ***hole for repeating anything that you have said - you actually may be on to something there.

----------


## nell67

> Isn't that what I said. They were LEAD to battle and SOME were ex-military.
> 
> Am I a A-hole for telling it the way it really was? Maybe you are an A-hole for basically repeating what I said.


Telling it the way it really was?? Remember,you are spouting the WHITE MANS version of how history unfolded...

----------


## Rick

Sam, no less than seven people, in this thread alone, have told you that you're wrong. Maybe that's something to consider.

----------


## Beo

Sam Reeves, come on dude, think about it.



> and is learning basic Karate from her mother. Is she also a warrior?


Yes she is, by Japanese martial standards. I have a 4th degree black belt in Aikido, and a 2nd degree in Iaido, in Japanese martial standards that makes me a warrior. Martial Arts... think of the words smart guy. Karate is Japanese for Way of the Empty Hand, a martial art of self defense. The arts of japan date back to the fuedal times and the era of the samurai and most Japanese still view things this way.

The NATIVE AMERICANS, did back then what we call *Guerrilla Warfare* by todays standards, they trained from birth to be hunters, gathers, and warriors. The Native Americans gave us our history here in the U.S. and what we did was so disgusting and shows how we broke our word (treaties) at any given point. A word and your personal honor is all you have and what did we show the Native Americans? Folly, lies, and backstabbing. During the French & Indian War Rogers Rangers were based off of the tactics of the Native Americans because they were kicking the crap out of the Brits, the French had already formed this form of warfare as it was better suited to the terrain. George Washington (who was a major under Gen. Braddock) told that idiot to use the colonials up front as they had learned from the Native Americans hunting and warfare. So yes they were better and smarter fighters than the brits.
Custer was an idiot who walked into an ambush and got what he deserved.
To say the Native Americans were behind is just stupid, they were doing fine until we showed up and screwd them out of everything and gave them disease. Our past is disgusting and as I have said sooooooo many times this country was NOT discovered, you cannot discover a land when the people who live there are standing on the shores looking at you. Discovery means finding something others have not. Europeans were dirty and disgusting only bathing every great once in a while, while the Native Americans bathed daily, personal hygene was big among the tribes of North America.
Source: Documentary Movie- The War thet made America by PBS & the History Channel
Book- Braddock at the Monongahela by Paul E.Kopperman
Book- Journals of Robert Rogers of the Rangers by Robert Rogers
Book- Christopher Gist’s Journals with Historical, Geographical and Ethnological Notes and Biographies of Christopher Gist 
by William M. Darlington

These are in my library if you wanna read the history of our country in truth and not the pack of crap in schools history book,
So you are wrong and still think you are right... that is truely sad. Think before you post. My signature sums you up pretty good too. Thin about it.
Beo,

----------


## Beo

Also Source- Book The War That Made America: A Short History of the French and Indian War _by Fred Anderson_
Nuff said.

----------


## remy

Let's get back to the main subject yes ?
My bad for bringing up native Americans.

"When has a mob ever been right?"
Sam

It is not about right and wrong.
Mobbing is attached to instincts...instincts are not right or wrong, they just are. Many other species share the same mob process, and calling it a "mentality", is probably the source of many misunderstandings.

----------


## Beo

It is about right or wrong.
If a mob forms and they march and get out of control they tear up things, hurt others and themselves, and cause huge amounts of damage. Now the "IF" at the begining of that is not all that big of an "IF" because in my 16 years of being a cop I have seen more than a dozen mobs and all but 2 got out of control, all had someone injured, and all brought in people that were bent on nothing but destruction. There are right ways to do things and mob rule is not the way.

----------


## Ole WV Coot

I know I am gonna choke on this being a natural born Redneck from Appalachia and all, but I agree with Beo 100% (that hurt). I have read the books he names and common sense alone would bring one to the same conclusion. American Indians had a great deal until it was ruined. They hunted, fished, fought and took it easy while the women did all the work and we screwed it up. Beo for your information the United States has officially declared us a "minority", Appalachian-American aka Redneck(so be nice to me). I also would suggest to anyone to read a little about the Melungeons. They are a mixture of all races who came North and settled in Appalachia possibly before the white man and have been verified by genetic traits and DNA. I do agree that you can't whip a dog in his own backyard and the Colonials had to learn from the Native Americans despite their superior firepower. I DO disagree about martial arts belts and ranks because of all the "strip mall masters". I just can't imagine anyone being as stupid as the British.

----------


## trax

The mob itself being "right or wrong"...or the mob's view of itself, is of less interest to me than how some here feel they would deal with the mob.

If a mob is wrong and are attacking you and you use a gun to defend yourself, you shoot _individuals_, not a "mob"

I'm having way too much fun with this. Bringing up native Americans wasn't a bad thing in my books Remy, it was just an example you wanted to use.

I certainly agree with Dad's point of view about the British, lol, Canadians trained the same way for a lot of years. In the 1880's there was something of a skirmish between the Metis and the Canadians in what is now Saskatchewan. It'll make for some interesting reading for history buffs.

And about native Americans circa the 18th century, here's a link to the thoughts and opinions of a white guy who was doing business with them in 1784. He's got a pretty interesting take on the Iroquois:

http://www.thepeoplespaths.net/histo...anklin1784.htm

----------


## Beo

Why thank you Coot,

----------


## Ole WV Coot

> Why thank you Coot,


I swallowed my pride, but if you're right can't argue with that. I wanted to but couldn't find any holes. Aw, maybe next time :Big Grin:  :Big Grin:

----------


## Sam Reeves

> A few points here.  As far as telling it the way it really was - you rarely do that, but rather spout some gibberish that fits your view of the world.  Secondly, you seem to evoke an *emotional response from quite a few people,* did you ever think it might be you.  Lastly, the possibility of anybody being an ***hole for repeating anything that you have said - you actually may be on to something there.


Actually, I believe you are on to something here, Crash. I evoke a "emotional" response form some people because they think emotionally and view things in the way that they "feel" about it. This usually means that they are not thinking logically and afford themselves to disregard the brass tacts of the truth. 

Now, Crash, do you really want to talk about what most criminals look like in Atlanta, Ga or do you want to tell me how you "feel" me even bringing up things that everybody knows but nobody wants to talk about?

----------


## Sam Reeves

> Telling it the way it really was?? Remember,you are spouting the WHITE MANS version of how history unfolded...


So are you saying White men a liars just that the victor is one one who wrights history?

----------


## nell67

> So are you saying White men a liars just that the victor is one one who wrights history?


Nope,I am saying that the white man wrote history the way they wanted it to be remembered,you don't think for a minute that the publishers of the time (white folk) would actually have published a book written by indians about the transgressions against them and let it go without rewriting it to suit the image that they wanted of the indians,do you?? What you read in history class was written from a one sided perspective,to be more acurate,it should  include actual facts from the indians side of the story as well.

----------


## Sam Reeves

> Sam Reeves, come on dude, think about it.
> 
> Yes she is, by Japanese martial standards. I have a 4th degree black belt in Aikido, and a 2nd degree in Iaido, in Japanese martial standards that makes me a warrior. Martial Arts... think of the words smart guy. Karate is Japanese for Way of the Empty Hand, a martial art of self defense. The arts of japan date back to the fuedal times and the era of the samurai and most Japanese still view things this way.


Sorry, I don't go by the Japanese standard. 
I imagine if keep at it by y'alls definition half the worlds population will be warriors.[/quote]

The NATIVE AMERICANS, did back then what we call *Guerrilla Warfare* by todays standards, they trained from birth to be hunters, gathers, and warriors. The Native Americans gave us our history here in the U.S. and what we did was so disgusting and shows how we broke our word (treaties) at any given point. A word and your personal honor is all you have and what did we show the Native Americans? Folly, lies, and backstabbing. During the French & Indian War Rogers Rangers were based off of the tactics of the Native Americans because they were kicking the crap out of the Brits, the French had already formed this form of warfare as it was better suited to the terrain. George Washington (who was a major under Gen. Braddock) told that idiot to use the colonials up front as they had learned from the Native Americans hunting and warfare. So yes they were better and smarter fighters than the Brits.[/quote]Somehow you discounted the element of supply lines and the ability to move an army vs. the ability to snipe and run for the hills. The Brits were eventually smart enough to fight fire with fire. The Indians were not smart enough to ever recover from this. 



> Custer was an idiot who walked into an ambush and got what he deserved.


I said as much on this forum about a week ago.



> To say the Native Americans were behind is just stupid, they were doing fine until we showed up and screwd them out of everything and gave them disease. Our past is disgusting and as I have said sooooooo many times this country was NOT discovered, you cannot discover a land when the people who live there are standing on the shores looking at you. Discovery means finding something others have not. Europeans were dirty and disgusting only bathing every great once in a while, while the Native Americans bathed daily, personal hygene was big among the tribes of North America.
> Source: Documentary Movie- The War thet made America by PBS & the History Channel
> Book- Braddock at the Monongahela by Paul E.Kopperman
> Book- Journals of Robert Rogers of the Rangers by Robert Rogers
> Book- Christopher Gists Journals with Historical, Geographical and Ethnological Notes and Biographies of Christopher Gist 
> by William M. Darlington


Did the Indians bath before or after they swapped their wives for a pony or hacked themselves hoping for some vision?




> These are in my library if you wanna read the history of our country in truth and not the pack of crap in schools history book,
> So you are wrong and still think you are right... that is truely sad. Think before you post. My signature sums you up pretty good too. Thin about it.
> Beo,


Okay.

----------


## Sam Reeves

> Sam, no less than seven people, in this thread alone, have told you that you're wrong. Maybe that's something to consider.


What exactly am I wrong about, Rick. Do you FEEL that something is wrong?

----------


## Sam Reeves

> Nope,I am saying that the white man wrote history the way they wanted it to be remembered,you don't think for a minute that the publishers of the time (white folk) would actually have published a book written by indians about the transgressions against them and let it go without rewriting it to suit the image that they wanted of the indians,do you?? What you read in history class was written from a one sided perspective,to be more acurate,it should  include actual facts from the indians side of the story as well.


So basically you now just saying White authors on the subject of Native Americans are lairs. 

How do you know a book written by Native Americans wouldn't be equally as biased?

----------


## Rick

I have no feelings, Sam. You should know that by now. What are you wrong about? Most of the things you post and nearly everything in this thread. Now, I know that will wind you up so post what ever words you like because I won't respond.

----------


## Sam Reeves

> I have no feelings, Sam. You should know that by now. What are you wrong about? Most of the things you post and nearly everything in this thread. Now, I know that will wind you up so post what ever words you like because I won't respond.


-Ex-military offers lead the Colonial Army.

-Little girls aren't warriors.

-Most criminals in Atlanta look the same.

-Y'all talk about how y'all feel rather than the facts.

Dang it, Rick. I was hoping you would FEEL the need to refute some of that.

----------


## nell67

> So basically you now just saying White authors on the subject of Native Americans are lairs. 
> 
> How do you know a book written by Native Americans wouldn't be equally as biased?


 No Sam,I think you beLIEve too much of the crap regarding indians,and your view has been distorted against the original people of this country( and basically any other minority for that matter) whose only crime it seems is to try to protect what was rightfully theirs in the first place.
Would indians have been equally biased,what would have been so wrong about their position on the matter,they showed kindness,and friendship to the first people from a foreign country,and for that they were slaughtered,or rounded up like cattle and herded to another part of the country,only to have the same thing happen there,when the white man could not be satisfied with what he had already taken.

----------


## nell67

> -Ex-military offers lead the Colonial Army.
> 
> -Little girls aren't warriors.
> 
> -Most criminals in Atlanta look the same.
> 
> -Y'all talk about how y'all feel rather than the facts.
> 
> Dang it, Rick. I was hoping you would FEEL the need to refute some of that.


Your facts are lopsided.

----------


## crashdive123

> Actually, I believe you are on to something here, Crash. I evoke a "emotional" response form some people because they think emotionally and view things in the way that they "feel" about it. This usually means that they are not thinking logically and afford themselves to disregard the brass tacts of the truth. 
> 
> Now, Crash, do you really want to talk about what most criminals look like in Atlanta, Ga or do you want to tell me how you "feel" me even bringing up things that everybody knows but nobody wants to talk about?


The emotional response that you evoke from people is due to your one sided (as you have proudly proclaimed, bigotted view of things).  Now if you want to talk about feelings you can.  You talk about criminals in Atlanta all looking the same.  When you do, you are wrong - they don't all look the same, but you do expose something else.  Not only are you a bigot, you are a racist.  Now is that based on FACTS or FEELINGS?

----------


## Sam Reeves

> No Sam,I think you beLIEve too much of the crap regarding indians,and your view has been distorted against the original people of this country( and basically any other minority for that matter) whose only crime it seems is to try to protect what was rightfully theirs in the first place.


I suppose next you'll be telling me that these men who brutally trained for war for most of their lives lived like hippies? From Alaska to Central America the Native Americans were some of the most savage people in history.



> Would indians have been equally biased,what would have been so wrong about their position on the matter,they showed kindness,and friendship to the first people from a foreign country,and for that they were slaughtered,or rounded up like cattle and herded to another part of the country,only to have the same thing happen there,when the white man could not be satisfied with what he had already taken.


I've never once said the Brits treated the Indians with tender loving kindness. Everybody has been at war with England at some point. Blame the queen, not me.

----------


## nell67

[quote=Sam Reeves;59541]I suppose next you'll be telling me that these men who brutally trained for war for most of their lives lived like hippies? 

LOL, thats why they sat around the camp fire smokin' the peacepipe.

----------


## Sam Reeves

> The emotional response that you evoke from people is due to your one sided (as you have proudly proclaimed, bigotted view of things).  Now if you want to talk about feelings you can.  You talk about criminals in Atlanta all looking the same.  When you do, you are wrong - they don't all look the same, but you do expose something else.  Not only are you a bigot, you are a racist.  Now is that based on FACTS or FEELINGS?


Based on fact. A well known fact. 

http://www.prisonpolicy.org/graphs/GA_incrates2001.html

How do you feel about that or a government document racist?

----------


## Sam Reeves

> LOL, thats why that sat around the camp fire smokin' the peacepipe.


They usually did a smoke a peace pipe between wars.

----------


## crashdive123

Well at least you didn't link to another prison penpal promotional site.  So let me ask you....is everything you do, or think about regarding events outside your home based race?

----------


## nell67

> They usually did a smoke a peace pipe between wars.


 FIANLLY,you got something partly right......

----------


## nell67

Crash,his true colors are showing,and it's not red,white,and blue,it's all in shades of black and white.

----------


## Sam Reeves

> Well at least you didn't link to another prison penpal promotional site.  So let me ask you....is everything you do, or think about regarding events outside your home based race?


Nope. There is more to life than worry about what other people are doing. I just choose to live away from urban areas for obvious reasons.

----------


## Sam Reeves

> FIANLLY,you got something partly right......


Maybe finally you are starting to agree with me.  :Stick Out Tongue:

----------


## Sam Reeves

> Crash,his true colors are showing,and it's not red,white,and blue,it's all in shades of black and white.


Naw, in reality there are just shades of gray.

----------


## TrappinGal

> Nope,I am saying that the white man wrote history the way they wanted it to be remembered,you don't think for a minute that the publishers of the time (white folk) would actually have published a book written by indians about the transgressions against them and let it go without rewriting it to suit the image that they wanted of the indians,do you?? What you read in history class was written from a one sided perspective,to be more acurate,it should  include actual facts from the indians side of the story as well.



indians arent the only group of people that the white man has failed to represent in history.

But yet, whites get mad when the African American race has black history month to celebrate their historical contributins to our great country. ive often thought that was because their version of history hit a little too close to home for some to stomach. ?

----------


## Rick

Or Irish, Or Chinese, Or Italians, Or.......

----------


## crashdive123

I'll bet that those that fear other races and cultures the most would be shocked if they traced their lineage back far enough.  They may find a "colorful" history.

----------


## TrappinGal

indeed they might.

----------


## Sam Reeves

> indians arent the only group of people that the white man has failed to represent in history.
> 
> But yet, whites get mad when the African American race has black history month to celebrate their historical contributins to our great country. ive often thought that was because their version of history hit a little too close to home for some to stomach. ?


The problem is that White folks aren't representing themselves lately.

BTW, when is White history month?

----------


## crashdive123

> BTW, when is White history month?


I imagine every month in your world.

----------


## TrappinGal

the other 11 months of the year.

----------


## Sam Reeves

> I'll bet that those that fear other races and cultures the most would be shocked if they traced their lineage back far enough.  They may find a "colorful" history.


Hey nobody is perfect. Assuming I'm 1-2% something else doesn't obligate me to embrace another race or culture.

----------


## Sam Reeves

> the other 11 months of the year.



Says who? I never hear about it on any McDonald's wrappers.

----------


## Sam Reeves

> I imagine every month in your world.


So how about you crash? When is White history month for you?

----------


## crashdive123

> So how about you crash? When is White history month for you?


Quite honestly Sam Reeves, it's something I don't worry or think about.  Why does it seem to bother you so much?

----------


## TrappinGal

> Says who? I never hear about it on any McDonald's wrappers.



 defensiveness is a sign that the person being quoted  has "hit the nail on the head" so to speak.

if its only one month and all the history books support the white view, why are you scared to let them have 30 days?

----------


## Sam Reeves

> defensiveness is a sign that the person originally be adressed has "hit the nail on the head" so to speak.


LOL. You are preaching to choir here.




> if its only one month and all the history books support the white view, why are you scared to let them have 30 days?



I'm not. Carver was credited for inventing peanut butter. Peanuts aren't even a native plant to the South Easter part of North America. The Aztecs had peanut butter paste before he did. Carver took the credit that belonged to the Native Americans as part of Black History month. How do you FEEL about that?
http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...ntions_of.html

----------


## TrappinGal

who gave him that credit and condones it? the white mans history books  that who so id say your argument is with them, not me. theyre the one erroniously publishing facts, according to you......

i bet you dont even eat peanut butter because a black man invented it , do you? lol

i bet you use lightbulbs, did you know they wouldnt be here except for a black man?

and did you know that a black man invented the gas mask that has protected numerous whites throughout history? police and soldiers included?

----------


## crashdive123

> I'm not. Carver was credited for inventing peanut butter. Peanuts aren't even a native plant to the South Easter part of North America. The Aztecs had peanut butter paste before he did. Carver took the credit that belonged to the Native Americans as part of Black History month. How do you FEEL about that?
> http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...ntions_of.html


So inventing peanut butter is what you think George Washington Carver is famous for?  You may want to pay a bit more attention during that Black History Month that you seems to offend you so.

Agricultural chemist, George Washington Carver discovered three hundred uses for peanuts and hundreds more uses for soybeans, pecans and sweet potatoes. He start *popularizing* uses for peanut products including peanut butter, paper, ink, and oils beginning in 1880. The most famous of Carver's research took place after he arrived in Tuskeegee in 1896. However, Carver did not patent peanut butter as he believed food products were all gifts from God. The 1880 date precedes all the above inventors except of course for the Incas, who were first. It was Carver who made peanuts a significant crop in the American South in the early 1900's.

----------


## Sam Reeves

> who gave him that credit and condones it? the white mans history books  that who so id say your argument is with them, not me. theyre the one erroniously publishing facts, according to you......


It's politics and politics is the art of compromise. 99% of all politicians are liars. (this is my first assumption of this thread)




> i bet you dont even eat peanut butter because a black man invented it , do you? lol


If I don't I had better or else.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1




> i bet you use lightbulbs, did you know they wouldnt be here except for a black man?


Edison invented the light bulb.




> and did you know that a black man invented the gas mask that has protected numerous whites throughout history? police and soldiers included?


The gas mask was developed by a German miner in the 1800s.

----------


## crashdive123

> The gas mask was developed by a German miner in the 1800s.


You may want to do a bit more studying before making this claim.  It will probably pain you to learn that Garrett Morgan was not a German miner. :EEK!:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garrett_Morgan

----------


## Sam Reeves

> So inventing peanut butter is what you think George Washington Carver is famous for?  You may want to pay a bit more attention during that Black History Month that you seems to offend you so.
> 
> Agricultural chemist, George Washington Carver discovered three hundred uses for peanuts and hundreds more uses for soybeans, pecans and sweet potatoes. He start *popularizing* uses for peanut products including peanut butter, paper, ink, and oils beginning in 1880. The most famous of Carver's research took place after he arrived in Tuskeegee in 1896. However, Carver did not patent peanut butter as he believed food products were all gifts from God. The 1880 date precedes all the above inventors except of course for the Incas, who were first. It was Carver who made peanuts a significant crop in the American South in the early 1900's.


Geez, Crash. Putting words in my mouth? What I said was Carver was credited for peanut butter when the Aztecs were the first. 




> The sky is blue





> Not quite. The sky will be gray on a rainy day





> The sky is purple on a starlit night. Stop posting nonsense.





> That's the White's version





> The nice thing about a clear starlit night is that woods are quite and even and old coot like me can hear a stranger approaching





> And I can find them mushrooms and a clear starlit night.





> I bet you think the sky is only that blue just for you, Sam, doncha? LOL.





> See how many people here disagree with you, Sam.

----------


## Sam Reeves

> You may want to do a bit more studying before making this claim.  It will probably pain you to learn that Garrett Morgan was not a German miner. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garrett_Morgan





> A primitive respirator to be used by miners was introduced by Alexander von Humboldt already in 1799, when he worked as a mining engineer in Prussia.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_mask

You're right. He wasn't German. He was Prussian. Sorry about that.

I guess your guy just stole the idea for the America patent.

----------


## crashdive123

No Sam - once again you are wrong.  You said he was credited for inventing it, but the Aztecs were first.  He in fact was not credited with inventing it, but rather popularizing it.

----------


## RangerXanatos

Are all men created equal?  No (individualy we have our own uniqueness don't we).  But here we make them equal.  Whether we like it or not (No child left behind).  Do I believe that all people should have rights?  Yes.  Do I blieve that those able to be give the chance to apply themselves the the fullest?  Indeed.  Should those not able hold those able from applying themselves to the fullest?  Heavens no.  I do believe in rights.  But I don't believe in extra unprivalaged rights.  I don't believe that there should should be a _Black_ History Month just like I don't believe there should be a _White_ History Month.  But if there is such a thing, there should be recognition for all the races.  There is also a _Black_ Entertainment Television (BET).  I don't agree with that either.  If the name was changed from _Black_ to something else that wasn't race related, I wouldn't have any problems.  I'm not asking for a change in the programs that are aired, but just the title change.  I am in no way, shape, or form rascist.  I have very good friends of all races.  But I do think that things are done unfairly.

Daniel

----------


## Sam Reeves

> No Sam - once again you are wrong.  You said he was credited for inventing it, but the Aztecs were first.  He in fact was not credited with inventing it, but rather popularizing it.


No, Crash. He was credited for inventing peanut butter until it was proved a falsehood complete with a statement from the NAACP and the whole nine yards. 

Come on'

Are you going to keep grasping at straws here?

----------


## crashdive123

Sam - what are you doing now?  Inventing and making up quotes, attributing them to others?  Why?  Just to strengthen the argument that you are usually wrong, people point that out, yet you continue to insist that the world according to Sam Reeves is right and everybody else is wrong?  Pathetic, truely pathetic.

----------


## Sam Reeves

> Are all men created equal?  No (individualy we have our own uniqueness don't we).  But here we make them equal.  Whether we like it or not (No child left behind).  Do I believe that all people should have rights?  Yes.  Do I blieve that those able to be give the chance to apply themselves the the fullest?  Indeed.  Should those not able hold those able from applying themselves to the fullest?  Heavens no.  I do believe in rights.  But I don't believe in extra unprivalaged rights.  I don't believe that there should should be a _Black_ History Month just like I don't believe there should be a _White_ History Month.  But if there is such a thing, there should be recognition for all the races.  There is also a _Black_ Entertainment Television (BET).  I don't agree with that either.  If the name was changed from _Black_ to something else that wasn't race related, I wouldn't have any problems.  I'm not asking for a change in the programs that are aired, but just the title change.  I am in no way, shape, or form rascist.  I have very good friends of all races.  But I do think that things are done unfairly.
> 
> Daniel


Brilliantly said.

----------


## crashdive123

> No, Crash. He was credited for inventing peanut butter until it was proved a falsehood complete with a statement from the NAACP and the whole nine yards. 
> 
> Come on'
> 
> Are you going to keep grasping at straws here?


So now you're quoting the NAACP as an authority?  Careful - you may be accused of embracing them.

----------


## Sam Reeves

> Sam - what are you doing now?  Inventing and making up quotes, attributing them to others?  Why?  Just to strengthen the argument that you are usually wrong, people point that out, yet you continue to insist that the world according to Sam Reeves is right and everybody else is wrong?  Pathetic, truely pathetic.


No, crash, emotionally invested rants is your nasty habit, not mine.

*sighs* This is what yer kids are taught.

http://teacher.scholastic.com/activi...ors/carver.htm

----------


## Sam Reeves

> So now you're quoting the NAACP as an authority?  Careful - you may be accused of embracing them.


No, crash. Instead of offering an apology that gave a statement and through in "black oppression" a few times.

----------


## crashdive123

Oh please, which rant would that be?

----------


## Sam Reeves

> Oh please, which rant would that be?





> Sam - what are you doing now?  Inventing and making up quotes, attributing them to others?  Why?  Just to strengthen the argument that you are usually wrong, people point that out, yet you continue to insist that the world according to Sam Reeves is right and everybody else is wrong?  Pathetic, truely pathetic.


BTW, who didn't get credit for peanut butter?

----------


## crashdive123

You still haven't answered my question (no real suprise there).  The quote that you chose to site wasn't a rant, it was an accusation.  I was accusing you of making stuff up, making it look like a bunch of quotes to prove what?  that you are wrong?

Still waiting for the emotionally invested rant that you accused me of.

----------


## Sam Reeves

> You still haven't answered my question (no real suprise there).  The quote that you chose to site wasn't a rant, it was an accusation.  I was accusing you of making stuff up, making it look like a bunch of quotes to prove what?  that you are wrong?
> 
> Still waiting for the emotionally invested rant that you accused me of.


Isn't this rich. I have proven you wrong on several occasions yet you always repeat that I am wrong and come back with some emotionally charge rant, rave, gripe and protest then when all else fails you start demanding that I prove that you ranting and raving. Are you a liberal? Liberals can't argue issues either.

----------


## crashdive123

You truely make me laugh.  You make an accusation, then refuse to back it up.  Liberal or conservative has nothing to do with it.  The behaviors that I see you demonstrate more closely resemble fear and cowardace.  Not saying that you are, but it's how you come across to me.  Oh, and proven me wrong?  Sure, go on believing that if it works for you.

----------


## TrappinGal

remember his title crash...im betting he thinks hes a the greatest man

----------


## Sam Reeves

> You truely make me *laugh*.  You make an accusation, then refuse to back it up.  Liberal or conservative has nothing to do with it.  The behaviors that I see you demonstrate more closely resemble *fear and cowardace*.  Not saying that you are, but it's how you come across to me.  Oh, and proven me wrong?  Sure, go on believing that if it works for you.


See what I mean. You can't even post about not being emotional without being emotional. It sticks out like a sore thumb. 

We should have keep score on who always proves who wrong, Crash. It would be what 12-2 with me in the lead? 

Saying "No, you're still wrong" doesn't make you. Carver even still to this day occasionally gets credit for peanut butter. It's even on the Scholastic website for the love of the widdle baby Jesus. I refuse to keep doing your homework for you. What more do you want. An apology for being right again?

Anyway, I'll keep eating Aztec peanut Carver butter. I don't care who was the first peanut masher.

----------


## Sam Reeves

> remember his title crash...im betting he thinks hes a the greatest man



Hey, Rick. Is this an example of nibbling?

----------


## TrappinGal

people who deny the contributions and worth  of certain Americans in our country today, because of the color of their skin do it out of fear and a feeling of inferiorness.

to make their own race appear superior they try and discredit and defame the contributions of those they fear.it happens all the time.

are you afraid of what might happen if Obama gets elected as president? its a real possibilty you know.

----------


## Sam Reeves

> people who deny the contributions and worth  of certain Americans in our country today, because of the color of their skin do it out of fear and a feeling of inferiorness.
> 
> to make their own race appear superior they try and discredit and defame the contributions of those they fear.it happens all the time.
> 
> are you afraid of what might happen if Obama gets elected as president? its a real possibilty you know.


Obama! Obama is a bigot. He deserves to be president.

----------


## TrappinGal

Hed be but the latest in a long line of bigots wouldnt he? Only difference is his bigotry is focaused toward whites.he makes the white man nervous because the white man doesnt feel comfortable with a man in office they think is prejudice against them.theyre scared.

But yet black people have for centuries dealt with leaders who have hated them for the color of thier skin. and guess what , they survived. even thrived

dont tell me the balcks  have more fortitude than the white race?

----------


## Sam Reeves

> Hed be but the latest in a long line of bigots wouldnt he? Only difference is his bigotry is focaused toward whites.he makes the white man nervous because the white man doesnt feel comfortable with a man in office they think is prejudice against them.theyre scared.
> 
> But yet black people have for centuries dealt with leaders who have hated them for the color of thier skin. and guess what , they survived. even thrived
> 
> dont tell me the balcks  have more fortitude than the white race?


You should probably down load this:

http://www.iespell.com/

Anybody with an IQ above 85 isn't concerned with Obama's preacher, anti-semitism, Islamic sympathies or the fact he's half Black. Obama is a Marxists who'll turn America into anther France.

----------


## TrappinGal

i can spell just fine but when faced with rampant ,unadulterated ignorance and trying to respond to that ignorance, my brain works faster than my fingers is all. but ty so much for your concern.

every bigot has a reason to hate Obama.theyre varied and most are a complete farce.

----------


## Sam Reeves

> i can spell just fine but when faced with rampant ,unadulterated ignorance and trying to respond to that ignorance, my brain works faster than my fingers is all. but ty so much for your concern.


Now if we could just work on yer grammar.




> every bigot has a reason to hate Obama.theyre varied and most are a complete farce.


First of all Obama is a bigot and a lot of his support comes from bigots.

I don't like Obama's position on gun control, foreign aid or health care. I like our guns, we certainly don't need to double foreign aid and health insurance works just fine if you are willing to purchase it just like any other warranty. 

None of this really matters because McCain will win in November anyway.

----------


## nell67

> Maybe finally you are starting to agree with me.


 Not in a million years.

----------


## nell67

> You should probably down load this:
> 
> http://www.iespell.com/
> 
> Anybody with an IQ above 85 isn't concerned with Obama's preacher, anti-semitism, Islamic sympathies or the fact he's half Black. Obama is a Marxists who'll turn America into anther France.


Hey dude,BEFORE you start critisizing others on their spelling,maybe you really should go back through your posts,seems there are alot of inconsistancies in yours as well,or is it ok for you to not get it right,but you can try to embarass someone else for misspelling a word?

----------


## TrappinGal

> Now if we could just work on yer grammar.
> 
> 
> 
> First of all Obama is a bigot and a lot of his support comes from bigots.
> 
> I don't like Obama's position on gun control, foreign aid or health care. I like our guns, we certainly don't need to double foreign aid and health insurance works just fine if you are willing to purchase it just like any other warranty. 
> 
> None of this really matters because McCain will win in November anyway.




McCain has a less than consisitent cord when it comes to gun control himself, im not surprised you chose to overlook fis inconsistencies though......

http://www.gunowners.org/pres08/mccain.htm

watch him, hes not as much for your gun rights as you think...his vote will go to whichever group he needs to impress at the time.

im surprised youre gonna vote for McCain either, afterall he did say that illegal deserved to be treated with respect and that they were Gods Children too, same as you and me.

guess his views really dont matter when you get down to it, do they? you just cant stand the thought of  a black man as president... any black man...

nell67.. him and trying to embarass me? it all comes back to his need to drag me down in order to feel superior to me, when he knows in actuality, he isnt.  :Smile: ty though.

----------


## TrappinGal

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappinGal  
i can spell just fine but when faced with rampant ,unadulterated ignorance and trying to respond to that ignorance, my brain works faster than my fingers is all. but ty so much for your concern. 

 sam says.."Now if we could just work on yer grammar". in response.



sam all i have to say to that is , im glad to see you arent denying your rampant unadulterated ignorance.

----------


## Rick

Sam - This has to rank as one of the most abusive and insensate threads I've ever witnessed. I have never seen anyone stand before a group and insist that the group was wrong and he was right on every subject come hell or high water. You twist and turn words and somehow think you have made some point and you do it with pride. 

I'm incensed that you of all people would attack others on the forum for their lack of grammar or their spelling errors. I'm incensed that you would proclaim your superiority because you happened to be born of a particular color. I doubt you would be man enough to do any of these things in person but you easily hide behind the cloak of anonymity because the internet gives you some sense of power, entitlement and a forum for spouting your poison when you otherwise would no have a voice. 

In this thread alone, you have violated the forum rules on politics, race and attacking other forum members. Since you don't seem to have a desire or skills in the wilderness arena perhaps another forum would better suit you. Whether you chose to stay or not, this won't happen again. You are far too disruptive to this forum to allow this garbage to continue. You argue for the sake of arguing but you are done doing it. 

Consider yourself warned and this thread closed!

----------

