Author: Papa Giorgio

Farmageddon｜Documentary

Published by Papa Giorgio

The story of a mom whose son was healed from all allergies and asthma after consuming raw milk, and real food from farms. It depicts people all over the country who formed food co-ops and private clubs to get these foods, and how they were raided by state and local governments. Farmageddon tells the story of family farms that were providing healthy foods to their communities and were forced to stop by agents of misguided government bureaucracies.

Beyond Impossible | Documentary

Published by Papa Giorgio

Beyond Impossible exposes the corruption of the fake meat industry and how it ties in with the sinister plans of a global elite. Health expert Vinnie Tortorich asks the intriguing question: What do Harvard University, internet Vegans and the World Economic Forum all have in common?

A religious desire for the world to go Vegan.

But why? Is it an effort to stop global warming? Is it an earnest attempt at making everyone healthier? Is it a desperate plea to end animal cruelty? The answers may surprise you. Beyond Impossible reveals an uncomfortable truth about a world where peoples good intentions are being taken advantage of by everyone from Vegan doctors to global elites hell bent on instituting planetary policies that remove all personal choices from the kitchen and beyond.

To name a few, the characters involved include a Harvard doctor who wants to tax consumers into the healthy choice, a fake meat inventor who has a fascination with snapping cows out of existence, a vegan leader who bares a strong resemblance to Jesus Christ and a German engineer and economist who dreams of starting task forces to realize his dreams of a global reset.

Joined by experts that include doctors, journalists and even former vegans, Vinnie Tortorich maintains that while we still have the power of free will, it’s only a matter of time before it’s too late.

Biden’s War on Gas and Oil Drilling

Published by Papa Giorgio

(PART ONE) The typical course of societal response to most government impositions is for small, aware, vocal groups to speak out against them, fail to stop them, and become frustrated as the rest of the population adopts normalcy bias, assumes the changes are just “natural,” and new generations are born into the mad system, never knowing what was destroyed and never seeing the lost opportunities that freedom could have offered.

(PART TWO) Writing about political activity is a never-ending exercise, akin to “demonology” – the chronicling of evil. But, thankfully, some courageous souls go to the trouble of doing the heavy lifting to report on areas of particular interest to them. And in this second of two parts looking at the first two years of Biden Administration attacks on oil and gas energy provision, one can thank Institute for Energy Research (IER) head Thomas Pyle for doing the “heavy lifting” of compiling the top 150, and putting them in chronological order.

(PART THREE) Last week, MRCTV produced two articles and videos outlining the numerous attacks against energy independence and competition Joe Biden’s Administration has committed since he entered office in January of 2021. The bulk of those attacks were against inexpensive acquisition, refining, and transport of petrochemical fuels such as oil and natural gas. And now, he’s added another to the ever-expanding list.

Glamour Magazine Has Earth Shattering/Breaking News! (Matt Walsh)

Published by Papa Giorgio

Yes, it is the biggest story of the millennia… except it isn’t. Matt Walsh explains:

The TV “green screen” is via GLOBAL KREATORS excellent YouTube Channel

More via THE DAILY WIRE: (As an aside, the picture I include technically is a naked woman, mutilated and deluded. But nonetheless, a woman. Not even a transgender, but a transvestite — getting the terminology “straight” [pun intended].)

Glamour U.K. kicked off “Pride” month by featuring a pregnant female who identifies as a transgender male on the cover, writing in the featured piece that “he gave birth,” language many slammed on social media.

The fashion magazine features author Logan Brown on the cover — topless and covered in paint designed to look like a partial three-piece suit. The headline reads, “Trans Pregnant Proud.”

In several posts on Instagram, the magazine included clips from the Brown interview, with the outlet writing that they had met Brown “two weeks before he gave birth to his daughter, Nova, to talk about queer love, gender dysphoria, and navigating the NHS as a pregnant transgender man.”

“I spent so much time feeling shame and being hard on myself until I thought, ‘You can enjoy this process or make it really difficult for yourself,’” Brown said in the piece. “I’m a pregnant man, and I’m proud to do what I’m doing…”

Brown, whose partner is a non-binary drag queen performer in the U.K., also told the outlet, “I took a pregnancy test, and it was positive. I’d been off testosterone for a while due to some health issues. It was like my whole world just stopped. That everything, all my manlihood that I’ve worked hard for, for so long, just completely felt like it was erased.”

[….]

Libs Of TikTok shared the cover on Twitter, with many people reacting to the headlines and comments Brown made in the article, blasting them as a “lie” and more.

“As a student of biology, that isn’t how that works,” one person wrote.

“He was able to give birth only because he’s not a ‘he,’” another tweeted. “Corrupting the language won’t make fantasies become reality. Demanding that all of Society upends itself to please a tiny group of severely troubled people is unreasonable & it’s not helpful to those in desperate need.”

“He did not give birth, she did,” one person wrote. “XY DNA is male; XX is female. There are two sexes.”

While another tweeted, “This is so unnatural. There is nothing cute about this at all. Men don’t get pregnant and give birth. They can’t even produce milk.”……

 

Hawley Rips Judicial Nominee For Trying To Shut Down Churches

Published by Papa Giorgio

Loren L. AliKhan: Nominee for the District of Columbia Court of Appeals

HAWLEY: “Do you think it’s wrong to discriminate on the basis of religious faith?”

ALIKHAN: “Absolutely.”

HAWLEY: “Then why did you argue that religious services and religious people pose a greater risk of infection than people gathered to argue for defunding the police?”

“And for this reason I will NOT support your nomination!” Senator Josh Hawley grilled this Biden nominee during today’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.

Todd Hermann: “The Big Lies” (UPDATE: Jesse Morgan Vindicated)

Published by Papa Giorgio

UPDATE VIDICATING JESSE MORGAN… 

STORY VIA:

(BTW, does anyone have any conspiracy theories I can borrow? Mine all came true.) This is for all the buttheads [being polite] that argued against this story as some sorta crazy fantasy…. Jesse Morgan has been vindicated:

Jesse Morgan drove a tractor trailer for a contractor working for the U.S. Postal Service. Shortly after the 2020 election, Morgan made these claims at a press conference held by the Amistad Project of the Thomas More Society:

  • On October 21, 2020, Jesse drove his truck and trailer from Bethpage, New York, to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, loaded with as many as 288,000 completed ballots. In addition, there were two large trays of mixed mail, bound for Lancaster. Those were in the front of the trailer.
  • Jesse drove the trailer to Harrisburg, but was not allowed to unload. After a six-hour wait, he was told to drive to Lancaster, without unloading at Harrisburg. In addition, the supervisor in Harrisburg refused to give him any paperwork to document his arrival in Harrisburg or his six-hour wait, which normally would justify extra compensation.
  • Jesse Morgan was perplexed by these instructions because “95 percent” of the load was for Harrisburg, and that mail would have to be unloaded before anyone could get access to the Lancaster mail bins. After that, the Harrisburg mail would have to be returned to the trailer and driven back to Harrisburg. Even for the government, that is slightly inefficient.
  • As instructed, Morgan drove the tractor trailer to Lancaster, and parked it in his usual spot. The next morning, the trailer had disappeared, without explanation. The trailer and the ballots were gone, and no one would explain to Morgan, or anyone else in this world, what had happened.

Jesse tells his story on this video.

[….]

Morgan later said that the FBI basically harassed him, was “harassing my family,” and wanted to know “how I came on TV.” Did they seriously investigate his claims? Not to his knowledge. Jesse Morgan has never recanted his story.

Final point: The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania certified its 2020 election despite the undisputed fact that it had recorded 202,000 more ballots cast than voters. That disparity probably made the election certification illegal under Commonwealth law. Eventually, Pennsylvania “found” more voters, but not enough. To this very day it appears that there were 91,000 more ballots cast than identified voters. Of course, that number exceeds Biden’s winning margin. It also lends credence to the claims of Jesse Morgan. But… let’s not be picayune.

As The Gateway Pundit reported in 2020, election fraud whistleblowers came forward in December following the controversial election, including one who witnessed the shipping of an estimated 144,000-288,000 completed ballots across three state lines on October 21.

The new information was made public at a press conference by the Amistad Project of the Thomas More Society, a national constitutional litigation organization.

The Amistad Project said that they have sworn declarations that state over 300,000 ballots are at issue in Arizona, 548,000 in Michigan, 204,000 in Georgia, and over 121,000 in Pennsylvania.

They claim that their evidence reveals multi-state illegal efforts by USPS workers to influence the election in at least three of six swing states.

The whistleblower statements include potentially hundreds of thousands of completed absentee ballots being transported across three state lines, and a trailer filled with ballots disappearing in Pennsylvania.

Attorney Phil Kline said, “130,000 to 280,000 completed ballots for the 2020 general election were shipped from Bethpage, NY, to Lancaster, PA, where those ballots and the trailer in which they were shipped disappeared.”

Truck driver Jesse Morgan was present at the press conference and spoke for 9 minutes about his unbelievable ordeal. Morgan was tasked with delivering completed ballots to Pennsylvania from New York State.

This was explosive testimony.

Jesse Morgan: In total I saw 24 gaylords, or large cardboard containers of ballots, loaded into my trailer. These gaylords contained plastic trays, I call them totes or trays of ballots stacked on top of each other. All the envelopes were the same size. I saw the envelopes had return addresses… They were complete ballots.”

Jesse went on to say that he sat in Harrisburg for hours, and when he was told to leave, the supervisor at the post office would not give him a slip or an overtime slip so he could get paid. Jesse said the manager-supervisor was “kinda rude.”

Jesse’s testimony revealed that United States Post Office employees were in on the conspiracy to steal the votes.

[….]

In June 2022 The Gateway Pundit reported that the United States Postal Service investigated the allegations by the truck drivers – but they would NOT release their report.

Now this- The American Thinker published a report this weekend. The USPS finally released their report on the accusations of truck drivers hauling completed ballots across state lines into Pennsylvania before election day!

Jesse Morgan was exonerated. No wonder they hid this for a year!

The USPS is running ballots!……….

THE BELOW WAS ORIGINALLY POSTED JANUARY 4th, 2021

JUMP TO EXAMPLES | JUMP TO TESTIMONY

Todd Hermann fills in for Rush Limbaugh and at the beginning of hour 3 he goes on a good rant about The Big Lies. (See Rush’s site about the show)

  • Reasons Why The 2020 Presidential Election Is Deeply Puzzling: If Only Cranks Find the Tabulations Strange, Put Me Down As A Crank (SPECTATOR)
  • 5 More Ways Joe Biden Magically Outperformed Election Norms: Surely The Journalist Class Should Be Intrigued By The Historic Implausibility Of Joe Biden’s Victory. That They Are Not Is Curious, To Say The Least (THE FEDERALIST)
  • Legitimacy Of Biden Win Buried By Objective Data: Emerging Information From The States Render His Victory Less And Less Plausible (AMERICAN SPECTATOR)
  • T H E  I M M A C U L A T E D E C E P T I O N (LARRY ELDER, or, PDF, or, PETER NAVARRO AUDIO)
  • EXCLUSIVE: Peter Navarro Expands Election Fraud Memo, Number Of Illegal Ballots Dwarf Biden Victory Margin By Over Two (Peter Navarro released an exclusive update to his “Immaculate Deception” – NATIONAL PULSE)
  • A Simple Test for the extent of Vote Fraud with Absentee Ballots in the 2020 Presidential Election: Georgia and Pennsylvania Data. John R. Lott, Jr., Ph.D. (Revised December 21, 2020) (SCRIBD)
  • Why Do the Election’s Defenders Require My Agreement? (AMERICAN GREATNESS)
  • What Would It Take To Convince You The Election Was Rigged? (STREAM)
  • Massive 78% Of Mail-In Ballots Proved Fraudulent, Judge Orders Election Do-Over (NATIONAL PULSE)

Rand Paul breaks down voter fraud step-by-step as dem senators scream internally. (Ken Starr)

Just a Few Examples of Voter Fraud

Ballots Counted Multiple Times

Vote Tally Centers Breaking Rules

Undercover Investigations

Testimony

MORE TESTIMONY!

LIBERTY PEN VIDEOS

I just wish to add context to the claims made in this first LIBERTY PEN video from a previous post of mine:

I included the excerpt of Larry O’Connor discussing just how many ballots were adjudicated of the absentee ballots — at the time of the audio 113,130 ballots were counted, and 106,000 were adjudicated. The percentage of guessing voter intent was 93.6% – wow. Here is the video:

In other words, a voter review panel interprets voter intent… at a 94% rate? This is illegal, and what’s worse, is that the re is no way to check these changes.

Also, watch Dr. Coomer explain how easy it is to change votes using Dominion systems “adjudication” part:

The WASHINGTON TIMES notes that in

…The report authors said they “observed an error rate of 68.05%” with ballot counts — a “significant and fatal error in security and election integrity” that far surpasses the “allowable election error rate” of 0.0008%, or one-in-250,000 ballots, that’s been established by the Federal Election Commission.

What’s interesting, too, is that state and county officials didn’t want to release information on Antrim County’s voting equipment for analysts’ review.

A judge had to order its release.

From the Detroit Free Press: “Judge Kevin Elsenheimer of the 13th Circuit Court had ordered ‘forensic imaging’ of the Dominion Voting Systems voting tabulators and related software after Antrim County resident William Bailey filed a lawsuit that challenged the integrity of the election equipment, citing errors in how the county initially reported its unofficial results.”

Come on, now. Why the need to go to court to obtain access to data and information that should already be transparent and public?…

COUNTIES w/DOMINION MACHINES

Rumble — An unbiased by-county analysis of 2020 general election results of over 3000 U.S. counties shows large-scale skewing of election results in favor of Joe Biden in counties using Dominion Voting Systems.

Analysis conducted by DataScience and released through BASEDmedia constructed a statistical model to predict relative performance for either candidate based upon U.S. Census county data to 90% accuracy.

This analysis revealed that counties that used Dominion and Hart InterCivic ballot counting devices and software consistently gave a 5% vote advantage to candidate Joe Biden over President Trump. This advantage was observed regardless of the county’s majority political party affiliation nor urban, suburban, or rural area demographics.

For further information, the full report is available online here: Evidence of Potential Fraud in Counties Using Dominion Voting Machines (PDF)

Truth Doesn’t Always Find Friends (Galatians 4:16)

Published by Papa Giorgio

Watching Matt Walsh yesterday he said something that made me wanna excerpt it. I didn’t get to it last night, and luckily I didn’t. This morning at a men’s group discussion during small groups a verse on truth came up (Galatians 4:16), and that reminded me of a J. Vernon McGee commentary, which brought me to Chuck Smith as well (also discussed at the meeting this morning). Of course this short video wouldn’t be complete without Jack Nicholson’s character in the movie “A Few Good Men,” Colonel Nathan R. Jessep, talking about truth. So I hope this hits the right nerve with some who happen upon this.

Here are some commentaries on Galatians 4:16
Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth? (HCSB)

Truth is not always relished where sin is nourished

L. Moody, Notes from My Bible: From Genesis to Revelation (Chicago; New York; Toronto: Fleming H. Revell, 1895), 165.

A person with pure motives and real friendship does not always say things that are pleasant to hear. Paul was telling the Galatians the truth, and as result was being labeled as their enemy. Sometimes the truth hurts; but a faithful friend would courageously confront another.

Earl D. Radmacher, Ronald Barclay Allen, and H. Wayne House, The Nelson Study Bible: New King James Version (Nashville: T. Nelson Publishers, 1997), Ga 4:16.

I had always wanted to place on the pulpit, facing the preacher, the words, “Sir, we would see Jesus.” A very fine officer of the church I served in downtown Los Angeles did this for me after he heard me express this desire. There is another verse I wanted to place on the audience side of the pulpit, but I never had the nerve to do it. It is these words of Paul: “Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?” As you know, many folk today really don’t want the preacher to tell the truth from the pulpit. They would much rather he would say something complimentary that would smooth their feathers and make them feel good. We all like to have our backs rubbed, and there is a lot of back-rubbing from the contemporary pulpit rather than the declaration of the truth.

Vernon McGee, Thru the Bible Commentary, electronic ed., vol. 5 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1997), 179.

QUESTION—Is this a question or a statement?

  1. It is a rhetorical question [BNTC, Lns, Lt, Mor, NIGTC, NTC; all versions]: because I am being truthful to you, have I therefore become your enemy? The Galatians do not appear to be able to tolerate the truth [NTC]. Paul wants them to face the reality of what they were doing. Paul was not their enemy when he initially preached the gospel to them, and as he continued to do so, and they should see it as a friendly gesture, not as a hostile one [Mor]. Paul wanted them to realize that he was truly their friend even though he had to use strong language in this letter and possibly in the previous letter [NTC].
  2. It is a statement [ICC, NCBC, NIBC, NIC, SSA, WBC]: therefore it appears that I have become your enemy because I am being truthful to you! The idea is ‘So I have become your enemy!’ and this reflects the Judaizers’ view of Paul, not Paul’s [NCBC]. The conjunction ὥστε ‘therefore’ indicates a conclusion from the facts stated in 4:14–15: Since they once regarded Paul with such great affection and now consider him as an enemy, this could only come about because he had been telling them the truth [ICC, WBC].

Robert Stutzman, An Exegetical Summary of Galatians, 2nd ed. (Dallas, TX: SIL International, 2008), 160.

become your enemy There come times with all God’s servants when certain people proclaim something fresh and new in doctrine, and then the old messenger of God, who was blessed to them, comes to be despised. I have lived long enough to see dozens of very fine fancies started, but they have all come to nothing. I daresay I shall see a dozen more, and they will all come to nothing. But here I stand. I am not led astray either by novelties of excitement or novelties of doctrine. The things which I preached at the first, I preach still, and so I shall continue, as God shall help me. But I know, in some little measure, what the apostle meant when he said, “Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?”

by being truthful to you There are many who have incurred enmity through speaking the gospel very plainly, for the natural tendency of man is toward ceremony, toward some form of legal righteousness: he must have something aesthetic, something that delights his sensuous nature, something that he can see and hear, to mix up that with the simplicity of faith. Paul was as clear as noonday against everything of that kind, and so the Galatians got at last to be angry with him. Well, he could not help that, but it did grieve him.

Charles Spurgeon, Galatians, ed. Elliot Ritzema, Spurgeon Commentary Series (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2013), Ga 4:16.

Am I therefore become your enemy? He now returns to speak about himself. It was entirely their own fault, he says, that they had changed their minds. Though it is a common remark, that truth begets hatred, yet, except through the malice and wickedness of those who cannot endure to hear it, truth is never hateful. While he vindicates himself from any blame in the unhappy difference between them, he indirectly censures their ingratitude. Yet still his advice is friendly, not to reject, on rash or light grounds, the apostleship of one whom they had formerly considered to be worthy of their warmest love. What can be more unbecoming than that the hatred of truth should change enemies into friends? His aim then is, not so much to upbraid, as to move them to repentance.

John Calvin and William Pringle, Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul to the Galatians and Ephesians (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 129–130.

Paul’s emotion betrays itself in the ellipsis of his thought. At one time the Galatians counted themselves blessed for having Paul in their midst, but this is passed. Is the opposite now the case? And so have I become your enemy by telling you the truth?

Read this as a question; ὥστε means, “and so,” R. 999. “An enemy of yours” is active, one who hates you, and not passive, one who is hated by you (C.-K. 459). The perfect tense “have I become” is used in the Greek fashion from the standpoint of the readers and refers to the time when they read this letter in which Paul tells them the truth. Will they then say: “Paul has become hostile to us”? Ah, but it is the best and the truest friend who honestly tells us the truth about ourselves even when he knows we shall not like it. False friends are the ones who hide such truth from us and do so in order to remain in our favor.

Some regard this statement as a declaration: “Wherefore I have become your enemy by telling you the truth.” But that is not true (v. 19). If he intends to imply that the Galatians now consider him as being hostile to them, this thought is expressed far better by a question. The declarative idea is made more confusing when the inferior reading in v. 15 is adopted: τίς οὖν ἦν; “What, then, was your felicitation of yourselves?” and supplying in thought: “Nothing but superficiality,” and then attaching: “Wherefore I have become your enemy.” Paul regards the self-felicitation of the Galatians as being genuine; he even states the strongest reason for his so doing: that they were willing to sacrifice their eyes for him.

Again, Paul is not their enemy. Finally, the ὥστε clause cannot be construed across the intervening γάρ statement and attached to the question asked in v. 15. The reason: “I testify,” etc., would be contradicted by any declaration that Paul is an enemy of the Galatians. Regard the sentence as a question, and all is readily understood.

C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles to the Galatians, to the Ephesians and to the Philippians (Columbus, O.:Lutheran Book Concern, 1937), 222–223.

It was natural that a certain uneasy reserve should begin to mark the Galatian Christians’ attitude to Paul. They knew that the teaching to which they were now giving ear could not commend itself to him, and that he would disapprove of their accepting it. This reserve would be reinforced if they entertained suggestions tending to discredit him, or to diminish his standing in their eyes. When he heard of what was happening, he could be trusted to tell them they were wrong, and such plain speaking was bound to be unpalatable.

ὥστε is used here to introduce a rhetorical question.

It is hazardous to find in Paul’s use of ἐχθρὸς here the source of his later designation among the Ebionites as ἐχθρὸς ἄνθρωπος (Epistle of Peter to James, 2; Clem. Recog. 1.70f.), as is done by H.-J. Schoeps, Judenchristentum, 120, 474; Paul, 82; a much more probable source is the ἐχθρὸς ἄνθρωπος of Mt. 13:28 (cf. Schoeps, Judenchristentum, 127).

ἀληθεύων. In telling them the truth Paul is their best friend. The truth he is now telling them is the same as what he told them when first he came among them, and on that occasion it won their friendship for him. For this ‘truth’ is nothing other than the good news of divine grace. If it is true, then the ‘other gospel’ brought by the trouble-makers is self-evidently false. It is reading an alien idea into the text to say with W. Schmithals, ‘Precisely this argument of Paul shows that in truth people in Galatia were declaiming against Paul on account of the apostle’s fleshly [“sarkic”] weakness’ (Paul and the Gnostics, 50 n. 107).

The situation, in fact, is not unlike that in which Paul was later involved with the Corinthian church, when it was visited by interlopers who brought a ‘different gospel’ and tried to disparage Paul in his converts’ eyes; Paul protests his unchanging love for his friends, even while he remonstrates vigorously with them: ‘If I love you the more, am I to be loved the less?’ (2 Cor. 12:15).

F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1982), 211.

ὤστε ἐχθρὸς ὑμῶν γέγονα ἀληθεύων ὑμῖν, “so, [it seems,] I have become your enemy because I am telling you the truth!” Elsewhere in the NT ὤστε (“therefore,” “so”) is always used at the beginning of independent clauses to draw an inference from what has just been stated (cf. Gal 3:9, 24; 4:7, etc.). Most commentators acknowledge this. Yet almost all critical texts, translations and commentaries treat v 16 as a rhetorical question (e.g., WH, Souter, Nestle, UBSGT, KJV, RSV, JB, NIV, Lightfoot, Lietzmann, Oepke, Schlier, Mussner, Betz, Bruce), despite demurrings to the contrary (cf. Betz, Galatians, 228: “The connection of ὤστε [“therefore”] is certainly loose”; ibid., 228 n. 97: “ὤστε [“therefore”] introducing a question is odd”). Nonetheless, linguistically speaking, Burton, Zahn, and Sieffert are right: v 16 must be read as an indignant exclamation that draws an inference from what is stated in vv 14–15; “the appropriate punctuation is, therefore, an exclamation point” (Burton, Galatians, 244–45). It is not, of course, Paul’s own statement of relationships, but his evaluation of what seems to be his converts’ attitude: “So, [it seems,] I have become your enemy because I am telling you the truth!”

ἐχθρός, “enemy,” was the epithet given Paul by the later Ebionites (cf. Ps.-Clem. Hom., Ep. Pet. 2.3; Ps.-Clem. Recog. 1.70), though whether the Judaizers of Galatia ever used it of him is impossible to say. The modal present participial phrase ἀληθεύων ὑμῖν, “by telling you the truth,” refers not to some past proclamation, but to the truth Paul is now telling the Galatians, which, of course, is what he told them when he was first with them and which then won such a favorable response from them.

Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians, vol. 41, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1990), 193.

 

A Positive Way To Tackle “Gay Pride” In the Classroom

Published by Papa Giorgio

During a kid’s birthday party (a classmate of my niece) — the birthday boy’s father and I had a discussion partly spawned by my hat.

We discussed the current indoctrination push during “gay-pride” month, among other things. I discussed some of my past letters to the parents/teachers/and principles I had written when my boys attended school.

(5th Grade) Kwanzaa: Racism in Disguise
(6th Grade) Indians vs. Settlers – Letter from a Concerned Parent
(9th Grade) “Racism” Invoked in the Classroom

(My boys are 31 and 27 years of age now, so the indoctrination on all fronts has gotten worse for sure.)

He mentioned that it is bad, and I responded roughly like this:

  》》 Cray Cray 《《

 

Not the school his kids
go to, but nonetheless,
Craaazy!

  • My boys are 31 and 27 years-old, but I wonder what I would do if they were in school right now. For instance, if my kid told me [or on a parent teacher night I saw] there was a gay-pride flag in the classroom. I think what I would do is offer the teacher a similar sized flag which I would buy her [almost always a “she” touting “equality”] to hang in the classroom as well. And is she refused to show equality of flags representing sexuality [which flags representing sexuality shouldn’t be allowed in the classroom, but that is neither here-nor-there], I would take the next step and discuss this with the principle. And if that met a dead end, the next step may be legal action. And by adding something to the “equality” stance, rather than asking them to take something down, I think would offer a more positive legal outcome.

When I mentioned this part of the conversation to my son he spoke like the teacher and said what would your response be to when she flatly refuses and says the flag is homophobic. To which I responded:

  • If someone in the classroom refused to include the “heteronormativity flag” (straight pride) – and it got to that point where they didn’t want to put it up because of “bigotry” or “homophobia” – you would argue: Well, I’m, in fact, the one that wants both sides to be represented. I am not telling you to take something down or to put this one up exclusively, again, I’m the party who wants both sides to be represented. So if any “phobic” term is to be used, it’s “heterophobe” here in this conversation.

That was just one part of the convo with some dads and friends of dad at the birthday party. I thought that that solution to one of the many problems faced by parents of kids in state-schools is worthy to catalog here for others to say, “Oh yeah, I think that is something I can do in my little corner of the community.”

Two flags repping heteronormativity:

 

Correcting the Humorless Social Media “Fact-Checkers”

Published by Papa Giorgio

So the lack of cartoonish humor on social media is upsetting. So much so I am going to do a “fact-check” on a “fact-check.”

Yes, it is true with the original cartoon I posted on Facebook that 5-year-old’s do not get hormone therapy to prepare for sex-transitions, yet, very young children do in fact get hormone blockers and surgery.

Did I mention VERY YOUNG?

So, I decided to make a cartoon of my own with the current FACTS I know of.

I am curious if I will get “fact-checked” when I upload this to my SSM Facebook page.

Here is what I will post with the cartoon… and a larger version will be available when you click the below cartoon for better reading:

NEW FB POST

The “fact-checks” are missing the humor of the original cartoon I posted. Both Reuters and PolitiFact would probably say the same if I changed this to an 11-year-old. However, we know that,

  • A brief report from four doctors at Vanderbilt University, “Gender-Affirming Chest Reconstruction Among Transgender and Gender-Diverse Adolescents in the US From 2016 to 2019” appeared in JAMA Pediatrics earlier this week. It is “the largest investigation to date of gender-affirming chest reconstruction in a pediatric population” to date. [….] An estimated 1,130 “top jobs” were performed during those four years on girls as young as 12. [….] According to the data, based on the Nationwide Ambulatory Surgery Sample, the Vanderbilt doctors calculated that 5.5 percent of the children were under 14, 21.5 percent under 15, and 56 percent under 16. I assume if a double mastectomy is done at 12 or 13, a penectomy would be done as well to that age-group? [I assume a penectomy has more health consequences for this age-group, so this may be a later stage surgery.] (See more at RPT)

Typically, hormone therapies/puberty blockers are required a year before surgery, so it is reasonable to assume girls [and boys] as young a 11-years-old have had these “therapies” [child abuse] done to them. I say, “to them” because 11-year-olds cannot consent to such medical procedures and “therapies.”

The Negro Project | Margaret Sanger

Published by Papa Giorgio

“We do not want word to get out that we want

to exterminate the Negro population.”

-Sanger’s letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, Dec. 19, 1939

To wit, 78% of their clinics are in minority communities. Blacks make up 12% of the population, but 35% of the abortions in America.

Sanger’s Own Words

In this clip below I am more interested in her first statement that Margaret Sanger made, which is:

  • I think the greatest sin in the world is bringing children into the world that have disease from their parents, that have no chance to be a human being, practically. Delinquents, prisoners, all sorts of things just marked when they’re born. That to me is the greatest sin – that people can – can commit.

She is talking about minorities here…. as the quote from GRAND ILLUSIONS gives context to.

From my VERY LONG post on Sanger:

…TO WIT… QUOTE:

Let us pick up from Grand Illusions (pp. 41-42), some of which was already pointed out by Goldberg:

Not surprisingly, Planned Parenthood officials have always tried to deflect any criticism of their founder’s B-movie worldview of weird science and ideological compulsion. Though they have managed all manner of intellectual gymnastics and historical revisionism in a feeble attempt to deny it, hide it, and belie it, Sanger was undeniably mesmerized by the fashionable elitism of Malthusian Eugenics.”

She was thoroughly convinced that the “inferior races” were in fact a “menace to civilization.” She really believed that “social regener­ation” would only be possible as the “sinister forces of the hordes of irresponsibility and imbecility” were repulsed. She had come to regard organized charity to ethnic minorities and the poor as a “symptom of a malignant social disease” because it encouraged the prolificacy of those “defectives, delinquents, and dependents” she so obviously abhorred. She yearned for the end of the Christian “reign of benevolence” that the Eugenic Socialists promised, when the “choking human undergrowth” of “morons and imbeciles” would be “segregated” and ultimately “sterilized.” Her greatest aspiration was “to create a race of thoroughbreds” by encouraging “more children from the fit, and less from the unfit.” And the only way to achieve that dystopic goal, she realized, was through the harsh and coercive tyranny of Malthusian Eugenics.”

In other words, she was a true believer not simply someone who assimilated the Flash Gordon jargon of the times—as Planned Parent­hood officials would have us believe. She was a committed elitist bent on undermining the familial bonds of the poor and disenfranchised.”

Thus, as she began to build the work of the American Birth Con­trol League, and ultimately, of Planned Parenthood, Margaret relied heavily on the men, women, ideas, and resources of the Eugenics movement. Virtually all of the organization’s board members were Eugenicists. Financing for the early projects—from the opening of the first birth control clinics to the publishing of the revolutionary lit­erature—came from Eugenicists. The speakers at the conferences, the authors of the propaganda and the providers of the services were almost without exception avid Eugenicists.

The Birth Control Review — Sanger’s magazine and the immediate predecessor to the Planned Parenthood Review regularly and openly published the racist articles of Malthusian Eugenicists. In 1920 — for instance, it published a favorable review of Lothrop Stoddard’s fright­ening book of Fascist diatribe, The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy.” In 1923, the Review editorialized in favor of restrict­ing immigration on a racial basis.” In 1932, it outlined Sanger’s own “Plan for Peace,” which called for coercive sterilization, mandatory seg­regation, and at rehabilitative concentration camps for all “dysgenic stocks.” In 1933, the Review published a shocking article entitled “Eugenic Sterilization: An Urgent Need.” It was written by Sanger’s close friend and advisor, Ernst Rudin, who was then serving as Hitler’s director of genetic sterilization and had earlier taken a prominent role in the establishment of the Nazi Society for Racial Hygiene. Later that same year, it published an article by Leon Whitney entitled, “Selective Sterilization,” which adamantly praised and defended the Third Reich’s pre-holocaust “race purification” programs.”

The bottom line is that Sanger self-consciously organized the Birth Control League—and its progeny, Planned Parenthood—in part, to promote and enforce the scientifically elitist notions of racial purification and perfection. Thus, like the Ku Klux Klan, the Nazi Party, and the Mensheviks, Sanger’s enterprise was from its inception implicitly and explicitly racist. And this racist orientation was all too evident in its various programs and initiatives: govern­ment control over family decisions, nonmedicinal health-care exper­imentations, the rabid abortion crusade, and the coercive sterilization initiatives.

Did The Settlers To The New World “Kill Off” The Buffalo?

Published by Papa Giorgio

  • Bison skulls piled up on the southern Plains in 1870s. This photo epitimizes the wasteful slaughter of bison by commercial hunters. However, we don’t know how large an area this represents–within a mile or maybe a hundred miles. We don’t know over how many years these skulls were laying around on the ground. Do they represent dead bison from a year or several decades? We don’t know how they died. Did some die from disease, harsh winters, or wolves? And even if humans killed all these bison, how do we know who did the killing? Could many of these skulls represent bison killed by Indians? We just don’t know. [Is there a small dirt mound under that helping shape the hill of skulls? – RPT addition] All we know is that many bison died. (WILDLIFE NEWS)

The above well known picture and the comment under it is from one of the two articles I will reproduce below. Great stuff Maynard! Here is how kids in elementary school are taught about the matter:

Indian Culpability in Bison Demise

…The idea that somehow either through cultural values or even “genetics” Indigenous people are more likely to protect and enhance biodiversity and other conservation values is widespread. But the other possibility that I think provides more explanation is that across the globe, wherever there was a low human population and limited technology, people “appeared” to live in “balance” more or less with natural landscapes. This is just as true of Celtic people in the British Isles, Mongols in the Asian Steppes, Bedouin people in the Middle East, or Africans in the Congo.

What is common in all these instances is low population and low technology. Change these factors, and humans everywhere, no matter their religion, race, or cultural identity, frequently overexploit the land. With modern technology, medicine, food availability and other factors, including dependency on the global economy, almost all indigenous people are freed from these prior constraints. Indeed, have been freed for several centuries in most places.

Such ideas are frequently guilty of the False Cause Fallacy. Correlation is not Causation. The False Cause Fallacy occurs when we wrongly assume that one thing leads to something else because we’ve noticed what appears to be a relationship between them.

The fallacy is saying in times past because there were more wolves or more bison or whatever when Indigenous people occupied a specific location, it was due to the people’s cultural values.

[….]

The idea that Indians “used” all parts of the bison and didn’t “waste” wildlife is another myth. There are plenty of documented instances of tribes killing bison merely for their tongues and leaving behind hundreds and sometimes thousands of dead animals. How many bison were killed annually in this manner is unknown; however, it was common to take only the best parts of a bison if one anticipated encountering more bison in a few days.

It is a lot of work to cut up a bison and transport it in its entirely, and unless you were starving or anticipated a shortage, it was just easier to kill a fresh animal when you needed it. And that was a common practice among Indians as it was among the few whites that roamed the plains in those days to take the best and leave the rest.

It is easy for people today to condemn such wasteful or, in many cases, try to make up excuses for it, but one cannot use today’s cultural values when viewing the past. If bison were abundant, and you believed that the herds were infinite, there was no reason to “conserve” them.

Francis Antonie Larocque, a French-Canadian trader, traveled to the Upper Missouri River in 1805 to initiate a trade with tribes located there. This was the same year that Lewis and Clark traveled up the Missouri and spent the winter of 1805 at the Mandan villages in North Dakota. Larocque noted in his journal that: “They (the tribes) live upon buffalo and deer, very few of them eat bears or beavers flesh, but when compelled by hunger: they eat no fish. They are most improvident with regards of provisions. It is amazing what number of buffalos or other quadrupeds they destroy—yet 2-3 days after a very successful hunt, the beef is gone. When hunting they take but the fattest part of an animal and leave the remainder.”

Alexander Ross, a fur trader who accompanied a bison hunt by Metis in Manitoba, reported they killed twenty-five hundred buffaloes to produce three hundred and seventy-five bags of pemmican and two hundred and forty bales of dried meat. According to Ross, seven hundred and fifty bison would have been sufficient to produce this amount of food. Still, he goes on to say, “the great characteristic of all western hunts of buffalo, elk or antelope, was waste.”

In his book The Ecological Indian, Shepard Krech quotes Trader Charles McKenzie, who lived among the plains Indians in 1804 who noted that Gros Ventre Indians he traveled with killed “whole herds” only for their tongues.

Similarly, Alexander Henry in 1809 noted that the Blackfeet left most of the bulls they had killed intact and reported that they took “only the best parts” of meat.”

And Paul Kane, another visitor to the Great Plains, remarked that the Indians “destroy innumerable buffaloes,” and he speculated that only “one in twenty is used in any way by the Indians” while “thousands are left to rot where they fall.”

(Of course, white trappers and other travelers in bison territory often did the same practices like killing a bison and only taking the prime cuts).

As early as 1800, traders along the Missouri River reported that local bison herds were depleted by native hunting. And here is where you must pay attention to dates—sometimes, most people ignore or simply don’t appreciate the significance.

While a few fur traders had penetrated the Great Plains before the 1800s, the Lewis and Clark explorations between 1804-06 provided a glimpse of the bison hunting culture and the abundance of beaver.

Their journals spurred on the era of the mountain man fur trapper who concentrated on beaver trapping. The mountain man was in his heyday between 1820 and 1840s. Estimates suggest that at their height, no more than 1000 white trappers were spread across the entire plains and the Rocky Mountains from what is now Mexico to Canada. And the mining era only began in the 1850s-60s, and most mining camps were concentrated in the mountains away from the large bison concentrations on the plains.

All of this suggests that hunting of plains bison by white people was insignificant before the 1870s, yet bison herds were already disappearing from many of their former haunts….

(WILDLIFE NEWS)

Bison Ecology, Ecological Influence, Behavior, And Decline

….Shepard Krech (1999) quotes Trader Charles McKenzie who lived among the plains Indians in 1804 who noted that Gros Ventre Indians he traveled with killed “whole herds” only for their tongues.

Similarly, Alexander Henry in 1809 noted that the Blackfeet left most of the bulls they had killed intact and reported that took “only the best parts” of meat.” And Paul Kane, another visitor to the Great Plains, remarked that the Indians “destroy innumerable buffaloes” and he speculated that only “one in twenty is used in any way by the Indians” while “thousands are left to rot where they fall.”

Bailey (2016) described Native Americans bison killings: “Stuart (Spaulding 1953:116 117) found immense numbers of bison bones in every direction of the upper Green River Valley, Wyoming, in 1812 and Bonneville observed similar conditions in the same place in 1833 (Irving 1837:95). Clyman (1984:25) observed Crows killing “upwards of a thousand” bison in a day of 1824. Russell (Haines 1965:36) describes one village of Shoshones killing, without using guns, “upwards of a thousand cows” in one day of 1835. On the Great Plains, 500 or more Sioux killed 1400 bison in less than a day of1832 (Catlin in Roe 1951:631) and 100 or more Minatarees and Mandans killed several hundred bison in 15 minutes (Catlin in Hornaday 1889:482). Native Americans often attempted to kill whole herds of bison. In the cited Minataree/Mandan slaughter, every Intermountain Journal of Sciences, Vol. X, No. X, 201X animal of the herd was slain. Using the same hunting technique, the “surround” or “running hunt”, Flatheads (Salish) “usually carried a hunt to the point of extermination.” (Point, nd:141). Literature cited here contains descriptions of pre-hunt ceremonies of Native Americans. Many appear to have believed that providence, more than prudence, determined the continued availability of bison.”

Given the natural mobility of bison herds, it was impossible for tribes to know that they might be slaughtering the bison. However, herds on the fringes on the edge of the bison natural distribution were the first to go.

For instance, Osborn Russell (1955) observed the slaughter of several thousand bison by the Bannock Indians in Idaho. Russell described the scene: “I walked out with the chief to a small hillock to watch the view of slaughter the cloud of dust had passed away in the prairie was covered with the slain several thousand cows were killed without burning a single grain of gunpowder.”

A few years later along the Portneuf River near present-day Pocatello, Idaho Russell noted: “In the year 1836 large herds of buffalo could be seen in almost every little valley on the small branches of this stream: at this time the only traces which could be seen of them were the scattered bones of former years, deeply indented in the earth, were overgrown with grass and weeds.”

Trader Edwin Denig who spent 23 years on the Upper Missouri remarked in 1855 in describing the territory of the Sioux tribe that area east of the Missouri River “used to be the great range for the buffalo, but of late years they are found in greater numbers west of the Missouri” (Ewers 1961).

In the late 1800s, bison had been nearly extirpated from the West (in part by Indian hide hunting). For instance, by 1830 a decline of bison numbers was already noted at Fort Union on the North Dakota and Montana borders. In 1834 Lucien Fontenelle told a visitor that the “diminution of the buffalo was very considerable. A survey of the Upper Missouri in 1849 noted a lack of bison and by the 1850s bison were becoming scarce in Kansas and Nebraska (Isenberg 2000).

This is where paying attention to dates is critical. In the 1830s the only whites in the Great Plains and Rocky Mountain region were the fur trappers, whose numbers even at the height of the fur trade never exceeded 1000 across the entire West. Though they shot bison for food, their focus was on beaver.

The hunting of bison by whites did not become a significant factor until after the mid-1800s and intensified in the 1870s and 1880s when bison numbers were already in steep decline across the West (Flores 1991).

One of the factors that may have contributed to bison extirpation is that cow bison were the only hides traders wanted, hence Indians focused their hunting upon female bison, which may have led to over-harvest.

In a sense, the bison slaughter by whites was the coup de grace, and final nail in the coffin, not the original source of decline (Bailey 2013)…..

(WILDLIFE NEWS)

Choctaws, Chicasaws, Cherokee, Creeks, Mohawks, Iroquois, and Seminoles to name just a few that were in states of war with each-other in some fashion before-and-after the white-man every step foot on the continent.

Here for instance are the killing, scalping, putting into slavery those captured ~ FIGHT over the Black Hills (via: America: Imagine the World Without Her)

Now, however, as the Beaver Wars exemplified… there was a larger “monetary” benefit to these raids, land grabs, and the like.

To wit, *JUST LIKE* with the buffalo.

Here is what I mean.

While there was a concerted effort to get American Indians to become less nomadic (and thus less liable to be: “fierce raiders,” “crafty foemen” [an enemy in war], and “‘not’ meek”), the Indians THEMSELVES played a large roll in this “de-nomaditisation”! American Indians THEMSELVES sought to make a buck off of these new techniques of leather making (see especially the second large quote below):

Until 1871 the fur buffalo robe was the main marketable item, the leather being a far more limited commodity. Leather was used by the British Army in the Crimean War (1854-1856), but only after 1871 did an English firm provide a mass market for the buffalo hides. Previously, when the robes were the main item of value, commercial hunting was confined mainly to the winter when the fur was thick, but with leather as the mass product, the buffalo hunter could kill with profit all year round (Vestal, 1952, 40). The railroads, too, were glad to have the busi­ness. Their progress westward had been stopped by the long depression of the 1870s; with almost no traffic, carrying buffalo meat, hides, and bones to eastern markets was a valued business opportunity. Merchants and freighters welcomed the business that came from buffalo hunting (Vestal, 1952, 38).

Hardly had the market for buffalo hides become widely known than the panic of 1873 began which lasted for five years. During those years most of the buffalo on the southern plains were destroyed [Vestal, 1952, 451]. In 1871 the buffalo were estimated in the millions. Many of the hunters entered the profession expecting it to prove a life work and despaired of killing off more than the annual increase of the herd. Hunters encamped by water holes and rivers where the animals came to drink, built watch fires at night so that the slaughter could go on for twenty-four hours a day [Vestal, 1952, 46].

For maximum efficiency some hunters used the Big Fifty, a gun pro­duced by Sharps to the hunter’s specifications, made to load and fire eight times a minute (Sandoz, 1954, 97; Vestal, 1952, 41). “In a brief two years (1873-1875), where there had been myriads of buffalo, there were only myriads of rotting carcasses. The air was filled with the sicken­ing stench of death. . . .” [Vestal, 1952, 46].

The meat rotted, the bones remained, and then they, too, became a source of commercial profit. They were used in making fertilizer or in making bone china. They brought good prices. A man driving to town to trade would fill his wagon bed with bones and sell them on Front Street, Dodge City (Kansas). There were bones piled up as high as a man’s head, extending all along the track for many yards awaiting shipment. Many of the settlers managed to keep going by selling bones when drought and depression again struck the plains and destroyed their corn crop (Vestal, 1952, 50), before wheat had become a major crop of the area. One bone-buying firm estimated that over seven years (1884-1891) they bought the bones of approximately 5,950,000 buffalo skeletons. This firm was only one of many (Sandoz, 1954, 358).

Eleanor Burke Leacock and Nancy Oestreich Lurie, North American Indians In Historical Perspective (Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, 1971), 219-220.

Supply-and-demand. This doesn’t make the near extinction an ideal goal… but it opened up the Plains for a large movement of settlers. AS WELL AS pointing out that the real push for Buffalo hides was profit during a slow times after the Civil War; not “genocide. Nor was the goal “death” of N-A’s, directly. Indirectly, anything subsidized writ-large is known to cause death in greater numbers. In similar fashion, authors Hine and Faracher make the same historical statement:

Plains Indians had long hunted the buffalo, and the level of their hunting greatly increased with the development of the equestrian Indian tradition in the eighteenth century. From a peak of perhaps thirty million, the number of buffalo had declined to perhaps ten million by the mid-nineteenth century, partly as a result of commercial over-hunting by Indians, but also because of environmental competition from growing herds of wild horses and the spread of bovine diseases introduced by cattle crossing with settlers on the Overland Trail. By overgrazing, cutting timber, and fouling water sources, overland migrants also contributed significantly to the degeneration of habitats crucial for the health and survival of the buffalo. The confluence of these factors created a crisis for buffalo-hunting Indians by the 1860s. Tribal spokesmen protested the practice of hunters who killed for robes, leaving the meat to rot on the plains. “Has the white man become a child,” the Comanche chief Santana complained to an army officer in 1867, “that he should recklessly kill and not eat?” But it was less a case of childish whim than cynical guile. “Kill every buffalo you can!” Colonel Richard Dodge urged a sport hunter in 1867. “Every buffalo dead is an Indian gone.”

The extension of railroad lines onto the Great Plains and the development in 1870 of a technique for converting buffalo hide into commercial leather sealed the buf­falo’s fate. Lured by the profits to be made in hides, swarms of hunters invaded western Kansas. Using a high-powered rifle, a skilled hunter could kill dozens of animals in an afternoon. And unlike the hunter of buffalo robes, who was limited to taking his catch in the winter when the coat was thick, hide hunting was a year-round business. General Philip Sheridan applauded their work. “They are destroying the Indians’ commissary,” he declared. “Let them kill, skin, and sell until the buffaloes are ex terminated.” As the buffalo hunters did their work, Indians also accelerated their kills, attempting to capture their share of the market. At the Santa Fe depot in Dodge City mountainous stacks of buffalo hides awaited shipment to eastern tanneries. Historians estimate that in the five years between 1870 and 1875 five or six million buffalo died on the southern plains, wiping out the southern herds. The war on the animals then shifted to the northern plains, following the advancing tracks of the Northern Pacific. “If I could learn that every Buffalo in the northern herd were killed I would be glad,” Sheridan declared in 1881. “Since the destruction of the southern herd . . . the Indians in that section have given us no trouble.” His hopes were soon fulfilled. “It was in the summer of my twentieth year (1883),” the Sioux holy man Black Elk later testified, that “the last of the bison herds was slaughtered by the Wa-sichus,” the Lakota term for white men. With the exception of a small wild herd in northern Alberta and a few remnant individuals preserved by sentimental ranch-men like Charlie Goodnight, the North American buffalo had been destroyed. “The Wasichus did not kill them to eat,” said Black Elk incredulously. “They killed them for the metal that makes them crazy, and they took only the hides to sell. . . . And when there was nothing left but heaps of bones, the Wasichus came and gathered up even the bones and sold them.” This shameful campaign of extinction remains un­matched in the American annals of nature’s conquest.

Robert V. Hine and John Mack Faracher, The American West: A New Interpretive History (New Haven, CT, 2000), 317-318.

One needs to also keep in historical perspective that yes, these buffalo killed were done so primarily for their skin. And a lot of waste was involved. But even the Plains Indians are no angels in “waste.”

For instance, I wrote a response to an in-class assignment to my sons elementary class lesson about HOW the Settlers treated the New World versus how the Indians treated it. Here is a quote from that post:

From James Fenimore Cooper to Dances with Wolves and Disney’s Pocahontas, American Indians have been mythologized as noble beings with a “spiritual, sacred attitude towards land and animals, not a practical utilitarian one.”[16] Small children are taught that the Plains Indians never wasted any part of the buffalo. They grow up certain that the Indians lived as one with nature, and that white European settlers were the rapists who destroyed it.

In The Ecological Indian: Myth and History, Shepard Krech III, an anthropologist at Brown University, strips away the myth to show that American Indians behaved pretty much like everyone else. When times were bad they used the whole buffalo. When times were good, “whole herds” of buffalo might be killed only for their tongues or their fetuses.[17] Although American Indians adapted to their environment and were intimately familiar with it, they had no qualms about shaping it to their needs.

Indians set fires to promote the growth of grasses and make land more productive for the game and plants that they preferred. Sometimes fire was used carefully. Sometimes it was not. Along with the evidence that Indians used fire to improve habitat are abundant descriptions of carelessly started fires that destroyed all plant life and entire buffalo herds.[18]

Nor were American Indians particularly interested in conserving resources for the future. In the East, they practiced slash and burn agriculture. When soils became infertile, wood for fuel was exhausted, and game depleted, whole villages moved.[19] The Cherokee, along with the other Indians who participated in the Southern deerskin trade, helped decimate white-tailed deer populations.[20] Cherokee mythology believed that deer that were killed in a hunt were reanimated.

In all, contemporary accounts suggest that many Indians treated game as an inexhaustible resource. Despite vague hints in the historical records that some Crees may have tried to conserve beaver populations by allocating hunting territories and sparing young animals, Krech concludes that it was “market forces in combination with the Hudchild’s Bay Company policies [which actively promoted conservation]” that “led to the eventual recovery of beaver populations.”[21]

Those who blame European settlers for genocide because they introduced microbes that ravaged native populations might as well call the Mongols genocidal for creating the plague reservoirs that led to the Black Death in Europe.[22] Microbes travel with their hosts. Trade, desired by Indians as well as whites, created the pathways for disease.

[16] Shepard Krech III, The Ecological Indian: Myth and History, W.W. Norton & Company; New York: NY (1999), p. 22.

[17] Ibid., p. 135.

[18] Ibid., p. 119.

[19] Ibid., p. 76.

[20] Ibid., p. 171.

[21] Ibid., p. 188.

[22] For a discussion of the effect of the Mongol invasions and their effect on European epidemiology see, William H. McNeill, Plagues and Peoples, Doubleday; New York, NY (1977)

You see… when history is looked at in total and not in isolation, a theme comes out. Man is fallen. All men. Indians, Aborigines, Africans, Native-Americans, etc, etc. For history to be twisted, it needs to be viewed in isolation from other parts. History is not pretty, and the good things that come from it should be lauded… because they are rare. And this is not a polemic saying these United States were in the right in all their dealings with N-As. Reading through pages 176-184 in The American West book is heartbreaking. Moving whole groups of people by force has awful consequences, period. In this graphic from page 179 of the aforementioned book shows the undertaking started in this respect ~ even keeping in mind most fought against us in the Revolution. It doesn’t mean innocent men, women, and children were affected:

Alternatively, it is tough to argue that genocide or racism was involved as well. For instance, Colonel Dodge could be said to hate the Buffalo more than Indians. An insightful quote is this one, and, can be argued to be “speciesism” more strongly if Indian genocide is argued from his earlier solitary quote, via the official Journal of the Western History Association:

Lieutenant Colonel Dodge, who fancied himself a bona fide sportsman, regarded buffalo as “the most unwieldy, sluggish, and stupid of all plains animals.” To the hunter on foot, buffalo were by no means difficult to kill in large numbers. “If not alarmed at sight or smell of a foe,” wrote Dodge, “he will stand stupidly gazing at his companions in their death throes until the whole herd is shot down.” To be sure, Dodge regarded buffalo hunting on horseback as exciting and dangerous. But though chasing buffalo was thrilling to the novice, Dodge thought that “frequent repetition is like eating quail on toast every day for a month–monotonous.”

The Frontier Army and the Destruction of the Buffalo: 1865-1883 Author(s): David D. Smits Source: The Western Historical Quarterly, Vol. 25, No. 3 (Autumn, 1994), pp. 325-326; Published by: Western Historical Quarterly, Utah State University on behalf of the The Western History Association.

As

This is related in some way to many of my Native-American posts: