Opinion of Shannon County, South Dakota

[opebo]

Go figure out a Native.

Yes, they're hard to understand - having honor and pride and so forth..

I didn't see a lot of honor or pride. I saw a lot of drunk Indians living in squalor with nothing to do and nowhere to go. Dignity wasn't on the menu.

Such is the fate of all the victims of america, memphis - the Natives, the blacks, the hispanics, the poor whites.  They're all to be chewed up and consumed.

However you have to admit the fact that these incredibly abused and victimized people are showing an impressive level of pride in refraining - despite their great need - from accepting the absurd pittance offered them by the American government.

A proper solution to the Indian question in the Dakotas - one which would show proper respect and a realistic recognition of what was done to them - would be seizure and return of the Black Hills and whatever other territories they deemed indispensable to their culture, in addition to a massive financial reparation.

[memphis]

I'm not at all familiar with the workings of their tribal gov't, but I bet many of those people would like some of that money but are being denied by their own tribal leaders. Maybe we just have different perceptions of dignity. I don't see the shame in taking the government's money and making life better for a communty. They're not getting the Black Hills back either way. They may as well take the white man to the cleaners.

[opebo]

I'm not at all familiar with the workings of their tribal gov't, but I bet many of those people would like some of that money but are being denied by their own tribal leaders. Maybe we just have different perceptions of dignity. I don't see the shame in taking the government's money and making life better for a communty. They're not getting the Black Hills back either way. They may as well take the white man to the cleaners.

I think they recognize modern life under the white man's capitalism for what it is, memphis - an absolute ignoble shame. 

[minionofmidas]

I'm not at all familiar with the workings of their tribal gov't, but I bet many of those people would like some of that money but are being denied by their own tribal leaders

Not so much their leaders (they vote them out almost every election anyways), but yeah there's a definite vibe of talking about taking the money being "not done" as it's viewed as vaguely traitorous now, and there being a larger-than-you'd-think-from-public-statements support for it.
Though, of course, it's not as if any outside forces are at all unhappy with the current state of affairs, or as if it were even remotely clear how the money would be distributed. Would it go to the tribal council, or to individuals? Are there any people not registered as Oglala (Rosebud and Lower Brule people, for instance) entitled to a share? Etc?

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I feel sorry for them, but one of the most Horrible Counties in America due to having some of the worst voting patterns anywhere.  Ironic that one of America's most Democrat-leaning counties is in one of the most Republican-leaning states.

why would native americans want to vote for the republikkkans?

fc, though voting obama won't fix their problems.

Funny you should call them "Republikkkans" since the KKK was founded by Democrats.  And Native Americans have been made dependent on government as the result of liberal Democrat welfare state policies.  I don't begrudge governmemt assistance to those who need it, but it should help make you independent rather than dependent.

[Franzl]

I feel sorry for them, but one of the most Horrible Counties in America due to having some of the worst voting patterns anywhere.  Ironic that one of America's most Democrat-leaning counties is in one of the most Republican-leaning states.

why would native americans want to vote for the republikkkans?

fc, though voting obama won't fix their problems.

Funny you should call them "Republikkkans" since the KKK was founded by Democrats.  And Native Americans have been made dependent on government as the result of liberal Democrat welfare state policies.  I don't begrudge governmemt assistance to those who need it, but it should help make you independent rather than dependent.

You are....at best.....amazingly uninformed.

[k-onmmunist]

I feel sorry for them, but one of the most Horrible Counties in America due to having some of the worst voting patterns anywhere.  Ironic that one of America's most Democrat-leaning counties is in one of the most Republican-leaning states.

why would native americans want to vote for the republikkkans?

fc, though voting obama won't fix their problems.

Funny you should call them "Republikkkans" since the KKK was founded by Democrats.  And Native Americans have been made dependent on government as the result of liberal Democrat welfare state policies.  I don't begrudge governmemt assistance to those who need it, but it should help make you independent rather than dependent.

you're really fond of this insane little pseudo-history you've created, aren't you?

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I feel sorry for them, but one of the most Horrible Counties in America due to having some of the worst voting patterns anywhere.  Ironic that one of America's most Democrat-leaning counties is in one of the most Republican-leaning states.

why would native americans want to vote for the republikkkans?

fc, though voting obama won't fix their problems.

Funny you should call them "Republikkkans" since the KKK was founded by Democrats.  And Native Americans have been made dependent on government as the result of liberal Democrat welfare state policies.  I don't begrudge governmemt assistance to those who need it, but it should help make you independent rather than dependent.

you're really fond of this insane little pseudo-history you've created, aren't you?

You are....at best.....amazingly uninformed.

It's not pseudo-history at all.  All the historical evidence shows that the KKK was founded for Democrats, by Democrats.  The insane pseudo-history is when Democrats try to pin their party's racist past on Republicans.  I've read and researched this stuff: I think I'm pretty qualified to discuss it.  I'm sorry that the truth isn't comfortable for you.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I feel sorry for them, but one of the most Horrible Counties in America due to having some of the worst voting patterns anywhere.  Ironic that one of America's most Democrat-leaning counties is in one of the most Republican-leaning states.

why would native americans want to vote for the republikkkans?

fc, though voting obama won't fix their problems.

Funny you should call them "Republikkkans" since the KKK was founded by Democrats.  And Native Americans have been made dependent on government as the result of liberal Democrat welfare state policies.  I don't begrudge governmemt assistance to those who need it, but it should help make you independent rather than dependent.

you're really fond of this insane little pseudo-history you've created, aren't you?

You are....at best.....amazingly uninformed.

It's not pseudo-history at all.  All the historical evidence shows that the KKK was founded for Democrats, by Democrats.  The insane pseudo-history is when Democrats try to pin their party's racist past on Republicans.  I've read and researched this stuff: I think I'm pretty qualified to discuss it.  I'm sorry that the truth isn't comfortable for you.

You can't dispute historical facts. The truth is that in 1860 racist Republican Abraham Lincoln defeated Democratic abolitionist John C. Breckinridge.

[Franzl]

You're "Democrats are racist " message is getting rather old...but that wasn't the part I was commenting on.

[k-onmmunist]

I feel sorry for them, but one of the most Horrible Counties in America due to having some of the worst voting patterns anywhere.  Ironic that one of America's most Democrat-leaning counties is in one of the most Republican-leaning states.

why would native americans want to vote for the republikkkans?

fc, though voting obama won't fix their problems.

Funny you should call them "Republikkkans" since the KKK was founded by Democrats.  And Native Americans have been made dependent on government as the result of liberal Democrat welfare state policies.  I don't begrudge governmemt assistance to those who need it, but it should help make you independent rather than dependent.

you're really fond of this insane little pseudo-history you've created, aren't you?

You are....at best.....amazingly uninformed.

It's not pseudo-history at all.  All the historical evidence shows that the KKK was founded for Democrats, by Democrats.  The insane pseudo-history is when Democrats try to pin their party's racist past on Republicans.  I've read and researched this stuff: I think I'm pretty qualified to discuss it.  I'm sorry that the truth isn't comfortable for you.

no, i'm aware that the republicans began as an abolitionist party. i don't care. that's long in the past. it'd be like someone criticizing the liberal democrats in britain today because the liberals used to support the poor laws. utterly ridiculous.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

You're "Democrats are racist " message is getting rather old...but that wasn't the part I was commenting on.

I never said that today's Democrats are racist.  I said that the Dems of the past were racist.

And windis, liberals on here always use Watergate to demonize Republicans of today.  It may be in the past, but it still matters.  If you knew that a political party had a past as racist as the Democrats' past is, would you want to support that party, no matter how long ago it was?

[minionofmidas]

It still has relevance - it shows you can be socially Conservative, as Lincoln though not Stevens certainly was, without being an evil bastard.
It just doesn't have relevance to the question of what party one should support today.


But what's that silly question doing in this thread? The extinction of wild buffalo certainy wasn't a partisan issue in the 19th century, and neither were concentration camps for Native Americans.

[k-onmmunist]

You're "Democrats are racist " message is getting rather old...but that wasn't the part I was commenting on.

I never said that today's Democrats are racist.  I said that the Dems of the past were racist.

And windis, liberals on here always use Watergate to demonize Republicans of today.  It may be in the past, but it still matters.  If you knew that a political party had a past as racist as the Democrats' past is, would you want to support that party, no matter how long ago it was?

when? i've never seen that happen. even if it did, watergate is more recent than the democrats being right wing or racist. and yes, i would. you keep asking this question, and there are valid criticisms of the democrats from both left and right. you could point out the fact they insist on getting involved in pointless foreign wars, the fact they're so fond of corporate welfare, the mess they've made of the healthcare system, but instead, you focus on nonsense like this. no other poster has bothered with this ridiculous line of thought until you, even the most hackish of republicans. why do you persist with it? why are you so obsessed with something so utterly irrelevant?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

You're "Democrats are racist " message is getting rather old...but that wasn't the part I was commenting on.

I never said that today's Democrats are racist.  I said that the Dems of the past were racist.

And windis, liberals on here always use Watergate to demonize Republicans of today.  It may be in the past, but it still matters.  If you knew that a political party had a past as racist as the Democrats' past is, would you want to support that party, no matter how long ago it was?

You keep asking this all the time, and you get the same answer each time. No one cares. But your logic everyone should be boycotting Germany and all Germans should be seeking to emigrate. After all you would ever want to support/live in a country that had that horrible of a history, even if it was over 70 years ago? Speaking of which I've never seen a Democrat cite Watergate as the main reason they're a Democrat, and if any did I'd find it rather absurd even in the 70s because that affects only one Republican.

And yes you have engaged in extreme revisionist history, since as as has been noted by your logic on the Southern Strategy it was about attracting anti-racist moderates like Strom Thurmond appalled by the racism of people like Robert Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey.

[Franzl]

You're "Democrats are racist " message is getting rather old...but that wasn't the part I was commenting on.

I never said that today's Democrats are racist.  I said that the Dems of the past were racist.

And windis, liberals on here always use Watergate to demonize Republicans of today.  It may be in the past, but it still matters.  If you knew that a political party had a past as racist as the Democrats' past is, would you want to support that party, no matter how long ago it was?

You keep asking this all the time, and you get the same answer each time. No one cares. But your logic everyone should be boycotting Germany and all Germans should be seeking to emigrate. After all you would ever want to support/live in a country that had that horrible of a history, even if it was over 70 years ago? Speaking of which I've never seen a Democrat cite Watergate as the main reason they're a Democrat, and if any did I'd find it rather absurd even in the 70s because that affects only one Republican.

And yes you have engaged in extreme revisionist history, since as as has been noted by your logic on the Southern Strategy it was about attracting anti-racist moderates like Strom Thurmond appalled by the racism of people like Robert Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey.

Why stop there? What self-respecting Christian would want to live in Rome, for example, after Nero's persecution of Christians?

[memphis]

no, i'm aware that the republicans began as an abolitionist party.

This is not at all the case. The Republican Party was about free soil. Abolitionism was an extremely marginalized position in the 1850s. The GOP wanted to block merely the expansion of slavery. And by the 1850s, slave labor had little room for expansion anyhow. The only segments of the Lower 48 having not yet acheived statehood was the Great Plains north of Texas, then known as the Great American Desert and the Mountain West. Oddly enough, it was a largely symbolic issue until the secession crisis and even then, Lincoln offered a constitutional amendment to guarantee Southern slavery forever if people in the Southen states would remain loyal. Obviously, it was not to be.

[frihetsivrare]

One thing I will say is that it doesn't really matter how the county votes; turnout was only 35-40%.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

no, i'm aware that the republicans began as an abolitionist party.

This is not at all the case. The Republican Party was about free soil. Abolitionism was an extremely marginalized position in the 1850s. The GOP wanted to block merely the expansion of slavery. And by the 1850s, slave labor had little room for expansion anyhow. The only segments of the Lower 48 having not yet acheived statehood was the Great Plains north of Texas, then known as the Great American Desert and the Mountain West. Oddly enough, it was a largely symbolic issue until the secession crisis and even then, Lincoln offered a constitutional amendment to guarantee Southern slavery forever if people in the Southen states would remain loyal. Obviously, it was not to be.

True, but there was a faction known as the "Radical Republicans" who opposed slavery outright.

[memphis]

no, i'm aware that the republicans began as an abolitionist party.

This is not at all the case. The Republican Party was about free soil. Abolitionism was an extremely marginalized position in the 1850s. The GOP wanted to block merely the expansion of slavery. And by the 1850s, slave labor had little room for expansion anyhow. The only segments of the Lower 48 having not yet acheived statehood was the Great Plains north of Texas, then known as the Great American Desert and the Mountain West. Oddly enough, it was a largely symbolic issue until the secession crisis and even then, Lincoln offered a constitutional amendment to guarantee Southern slavery forever if people in the Southen states would remain loyal. Obviously, it was not to be.

True, but there was a faction known as the "Radical Republicans" who opposed slavery outright.

In most cases, the RRs were not outright abolitionists though. They railed against Slave Power and the expansion of slavery, but that is not the same thing as demanding the immediate and uncompensated end to the institution altogether. The abolitionist were extremely fringe type people. William Lloyd Garrison famously burned a copy of the Constitution, calling it a "Covenant with Death, an Agreement with Hell." Not the kind of guy the politicians wanted to be associated with. The closest comparison, and it is highly imperfect, would be the contrast between American Left in the 1930s and the unapologetic Communists. Henry Wallace may have had some unconventional ideas but he was no Bolshevik. The abolitionists were perceived as being that radical and dangerous.