messiestobjects

The Sheepdog Mentality

    Have you ever wondered what soldiers, cops, and other protectorly types really think of people who don't like guns? Several years ago, I found a transcript of a speech given by Dave Grossman at a military base while I was there for a job —I was not present for the speech itself. When I read it, my initial reaction was extreme indignation. I was going to post it then, but I decided to sit on it instead. The transcript fell behind my desk and escaped my memory for a few years until this past week when, during an intensive office spring cleaning, I rediscovered it. As I read it, I found that age hadn't changed my perspective very much. In it, he refers to the non-gun-toting 53% of Americans as "sheep," and tells any gun-owning citizen with a concealed weapons permit that if he leaves his home without his gun, he may as well say "baa."

    Now, by pulling that out of the context of his speech, I expect any non-gun-owner to be sufficiently outraged. It's insulting. But putting it into the context of his larger speech, it is slightly less insulting. Slightly. He actually makes some good points, and it's easy to see why he believes what he believes. But there are a couple of fundamental problems with his assertions, and there are some frightening implications, not least of which is that in my job I come into contact with a lot of people who are rabid gun-carriers, and who clearly have a sense of righteousness about the idea of carrying a concealed weapon. Many of those types of people that I talk to tend to be middle-aged overweight white men with average intelligence and an apparent sense of impotence. I don't mean sexual impotence; I'm talking about that feeling you get around someone who clearly thinks of himself as a hero, yet has never had the chance to be one. There are of course many heroes in the cop and soldier business, and I don't mean to denigrate noble action. But there are many, many more frustrated, unactualized, would-be John McClanes who yearn for the chance to use their weaponry and prove to everyone that they are worth something.

    At any rate, I get the feeling that Grossman and his views have had a large impact on the "responsible" gun-owning society that seems to exist largely behind the scenes to many people in America, particularly to liberals who don't have much contact with those types. So I'm going to post the transcript in full and discuss the issues I have with it in between in blue.

_______________________________________________________________

     Everyone has been given a gift in life. Some people have a gift for science and some have a flair for art. And warriors have been given the gift of aggression. They would no more misuse this gift than a doctor would misuse his healing arts, but they yearn for the opportunity to use their gift to help others. These people, the ones who have been blessed with the gift of aggression and a love for others, are our sheepdogs. These are our warriors.

     One career police officer wrote to me about this after attending one of my Bulletproof Mind training sessions:

     "I want to say thank you for finally shedding some light on why it is that I can do what I do. I always knew why I did it. I love my [citizens], even the bad ones, and had a talent that I could return to my community. I just couldn't put my finger on why I could wade through the chaos, the gore, the sadness, if given a chance try to make it all better, and walk right out the other side." -Even the bad ones. This is the first indicator that it is normal to label certain people as "bad." I'm not saying that there aren't bad people, I'm just saying that it's unwise to make such judgements without more qualification. What does he mean by "bad?" Gay? Muslim? Shoplifters? Welfare recipients? Or does he mean to suggest that he even loves terrorists? It's all very condescending.

     Let me expand on this old soldier's excellent model of the sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. We know that the sheep live in denial; that is what makes them sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world. They can accept the fact that fires can happen, which is why they want fire extinguishers, fire sprinklers, fire alarms and fire exits throughout their kids' schools. But many of them are outraged at the idea of putting an armed police officer in their kid’s school. Our children are dozens of times more likely to be killed, and thousands of times more likely to be seriously injured, by school violence than by school fires. -This is an interesting point, or would be if he compared school violence to something a bit less controlled than the school system's gigantic efforts related to fire prevention and emergency evacuation. How about prescription medication overdoses? I get that he's talking about just that, the need for preparedness in the case of school violence, but it's not clear that having armed guards in every school is actually a proven way to deter violence.

     But the sheep’s only response to the possibility of violence is denial. -So then the sheepdog's only response to the possibility of violence is more violence? Hmm. Did he steal that idea from the Bible?- The idea of someone coming to kill or harm their children is just too hard, so they choose the path of denial. I'd like to see some evidence for this claim besides a bold assertion. As near as I can tell, most parents worry themselves to crow's feet and grey hairs about their kids' safety. Grossman chooses to interpret a distaste for armed security guards in schools as denial rather than as a healthy skepticism of the effectiveness of such methods. Homes with guns in them are associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home itself. There is no reason to suspect that it would be any different in schools with guards, what with them leaving their guns laying all about for any depressed or homicidal student to pick up.

     The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, cannot and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheepdog that intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed. The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours. Ugh. This metaphor is perhaps meant well, but if Grossman really believes that all types of people have a place in society, that everyone has something to offer and that "sheepdogs" are merely another such type, I find it disingenuous that he would choose to use such denigrating language.

     Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn’t tell them where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our airports in camouflage fatigues holding an M-16. Or not search your adult diapers at the airport, nor make obnoxious comments about your private items, maybe even don't arrest journalists covering events that the government doesn't like, or not pepper spray students SITTING DURING A PEACEFUL PROTEST. The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, "Baa." Yes, clearly our distrust for authoritative gun-toting security types is all about a sheep-like denial of the possibilty of violence. Grossman seems to be in denial about the fact that we are too often at the mercy of the idiocy of people given sheepdog-like authority.

     Until the wolf shows up. Then the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind one lonely sheepdog. As Kipling said in his poem about “Tommy" the British soldier:

While its Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, fall behind,”

But it’s “Please to walk in front, sir,” when there’s trouble in the wind,

There's trouble in the wind, my boys, there's trouble in the wind,

O it’s “Please to walk in front, sir,” when there’s trouble in the wind.

     The students, the victims, at Columbine High School were big, tough high school students, and under ordinary circumstances they would not have had the time of day for a police officer. They were not bad kids; they just had nothing to say to a cop. When the school was under attack, however, and SWAT teams were clearing the rooms and hallways, the officers had to physically peel those clinging, sobbing kids off of them. This is how the little lambs feel about their sheepdog when the wolf is at the door. Look at w hat happened after September 11, 2001, when the wolf pounded hard on the door. Remember how America, more than ever before, felt differently about their law enforcement officers and military personnel? Remember how many times you heard the word hero? Here he makes his strongest point. Yes, absolutely, when bad things happen it is good to have a strong good-guy around. It is not denial, however, to recognize that the last time that Homeland Security created an entirely new nation-wide security team in response to a threat, we got the TSA, an amalgam of untrained security guards whose ineptitude has been a constant source of amusement, scandal, and ineffectiveness ever since. Yeah, let's do that again, but with children and inept guards with guns instead. I agree, it's a subject worth discussing, but I find it odd that the regulation of gun sales in a manner similar to the way we regulate driver's licensing is somehow more worthy of the sneering claim of "denial" than the idea that more guns won't solve the problem of violence.

     Understand that there is nothing morally superior about being a sheepdog; it is just what you choose to be. Also understand that a sheepdog is a funny critter: He is always sniffing around out on the perimeter, checking the breeze, barking at things that go bump in the night, and yearning for a righteous battle. That is, the young sheepdogs yearn for a righteous battle. The old sheepdogs are a little older and wiser, but they move to the sound of the guns when needed right along with the young ones. He's really stretching this metaphor. I wonder how he deals with the cognitive dissonance in stating that there is nothing morally superior about yearning for a righteous battle while the sheep go stick their heads in the sand. Perhaps he simply doesn't really mean what he says, and is just trying to downplay the aggravated sense of moral superiority that he actually seems to have a very difficult time hiding.

      Here is how the sheep and the sheepdog think differently. The sheep pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog lives for that day. After the attacks on September 11, 2001, most of the sheep, that is, most citizens in America said, "Thank God I wasn’t on one of those planes." The sheepdogs, the warriors, said, "Dear God, I wish I could have been on one of those planes. Maybe I could have made a difference." When you are truly transformed into a warrior and have truly invested yourself into warriorhood, you want to be there. You want to be able to make a difference. Most of the Citizens of the US are sheep. Well, on that we can agree, though perhaps for different reasons. I'd like to know, though, why he thinks that most people pretend that the wolf will never come, or that bad things will never happen. I think he misunderstands the motivations of people who aren't crazy about guns and violence. For myself, I know that bad things will happen, that there are batshit lunatic jihadists out there who want to kill me for saying that Mohammed was a murderous pedophile, and more charlatan than prophet--as are all prophets. The difference is that I choose not to live my life in fear. I am glad that there are men out there who want to prevent crazy people from destroying the lives of normal people, but the problem is that they are not always the best types of people to perceive where the actual threats are. To hijack Grossman's metaphor, I once saw a sheepdog bark at a squirrell in a tree for ten minutes while a fox happily kept an ear on him from the safety of the henhouse.

     While there is nothing morally superior about the sheepdog, the warrior, he does have one real advantage. Only one. He is able to survive and thrive in an environment that destroys 98 percent of the population. Besides admitting that a sheepdog's only advantage doesn't necessarily have anything to do with critical thought, I think he again underestimates common people. I have been in some scary situations: I've had a gun pointed at me outside of Saddam's gigantic mosque, I was 100 yards away from an explosion in Iraq, and I walked weaponless down Karrada street, by myself, in Baghdad in broad daylight during the spring of 2004 to get some schwarma at a popular restaurant. I also used to drive a bus full of Iraqis every day down route Irish, the most dangerous road in the world at the time. I knew that something bad could happen, but I've always believed that if you live by the sword, you die by the sword. If I had had a gun when that Iraqi security guard caught me taking pictures of the mosque, he probably would not have stopped me to ask questions.

     There was research conducted a few years ago with individuals convicted of violent crimes. These cons were in prison for serious, predatory acts of violence: assaults, murders and killing law enforcement officers. The vast majority said that they specifically targeted victims by body language: slumped walk, passive behavior and lack of awareness.  They  chose their victims like big cats do in Africa, when  they select one out of the herd that is least able to protect itself.

     However, when there were cues given by potential victims that indicated they  would not go easily, the cons said that they would walk away. If the cons sensed that the target was a "counter-predator," that is, a sheepdog, they would leave him alone unless there was no other choice but to engage.

     One police officer told me that he rode a commuter train to work each day. One day, as was his usual, he was standing in the crowded car, dressed in blue jeans, T- shirt and jacket, holding onto a pole and reading a paperback. At one of the stops, two street toughs boarded, shouting and cursing and doing every obnoxious thing possible to intimidate the other riders. The officer continued to read  his book, though he kept  a watchful eye on the two punks as they strolled along the aisle making comments to female passengers, and banging shoulders with men as they passed.

     As they approached the officer, he lowered his novel and made eye contact with them. "You got a problem, man?" One of the IQ-challenged punks asked. "You think you're tough, or somethin'?" the other asked, obviously offended that this one was not shirking away from them.

     "As a matter of fact, I am tough," the officer said, calmly and with a steady gaze.

     The two looked at him for a long moment, and then without saying a word, turned and moved back down the aisle to continue their taunting of the other passengers, the sheep. I love this story. I've heard a hundred blowhards tell stories exactly like it. I'm not saying it's not possible, I'm just saying that 9 times out of 10, this is the way the guy imagines it will go down the next time, or if he had had his gun on him, or if New York street punks were still living in bad 1970's movies. I've also often noticed that stuffy authoritative types frequently mistake kids acting in a macho or overly confident manner--or who are simply having a noisy good time--as punks who are trying to throw their weight around. People who follow authority like sheep...dogs... don't like people who question and/or disrespect authority. Think I'm just making shit up? Hey, my anecdote is just as good as his.

     Some people may be destined to be sheep and others might be genetically primed to be wolves or sheepdogs. But I believe that most people can choose which one they want to be, and I'm proud to say that more and more Americans are choosing to become sheepdogs. Stats, please. Although, I don't disagree. There is a definite mindset in government offices that I see more and more of.

     Seven months after the attack on September 11, 2001, Todd Beamer was honored in his hometown of Cranbury, New Jersey. Todd, as you recall, was the man on Flight 93 over Pennsylvania who called on his cell phone to alert an operator from United Airline about the hijacking. When he learned of the other three passenger planes that had been used as weapons, Todd dropped his phone and uttered the words, "Let's roll," which authorities believe was a signal to the other passengers to confront the terrorist hijackers. In one hour, a transformation occurred among the passengers--athletes, business people and parents-- from sheep to sheepdogs and together they fought the wolves, ultimately saving an unknown number of lives on the ground. Grossman is kind of all over the place with his sheepdog stuff. But I want to draw attention to the way he claims Todd Beamer as a sheepdog here. Beamer was a Christian who graduated from Wheaton College. He was a field marketing rep for Oracle, and he was not in the military and as near as I can determine, he never carried a gun. Now, he does fit the sheepdog mold in that he was ready to go into action, but as we will see, he also fits the sheep mold according to Grossman.

 

"Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself after that?"

"There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men."

- Edmund Burke

Reflections on the Revolution in France

     Here is the point I like to emphasize, especially to the thousands of police officers and soldiers I speak to each year. In nature the sheep, real sheep, are born as sheep. Sheepdogs are born that way, and so are wolves. They didn’t have a choice. But you are not a critter. As a human being, you can be whatever you want to be. It is a conscious, moral decision.

     If you want to be a sheep, then you can be a sheep and that is okay, but you must understand the price you pay. When the wolf comes, you and your loved ones are going to die if there is not a sheepdog there to protect you. If you want to be a wolf, you can be one, but the sheepdogs are going to hunt you down and you will never have rest, safety, trust or love. But if you want to be a sheepdog and walk the warrior 's path, then you must make a conscious and moral decision every day to dedicate, equip and prepare yourself to thrive in that toxic, corrosive moment when the wolf comes knocking at the door.

     For example, many officers carry their weapons in church. They are well concealed in ankle holsters, shoulder holsters or inside-the-belt holsters tucked into the small of their backs. Anytime you go to some form of religious service, there is a very good chance that a police officer in your congregation is carrying. You will never know if there is such an individual in your place of worship, until the wolf appears to slaughter you and your loved ones. I wonder if Jesus wished that he and his disciples were packing that day in Gethsemane?

     I was training a group of police officers in Texas, and during the break, one officer asked his friend if he carried his weapon in church. The other cop replied, "I will never be caught without my gun in church." I asked why he felt so strongly about this, and he told me about a police officer he knew who was at a church massacre in Ft. Worth, Texas, in 1999. In that incident, a mentally deranged individual came into the church and opened fire, gunning down 14 people. He said that officer believed he could have saved every life that day if he had been carrying his gun. His own son was shot, and all he could do was throw him on the boy’s body and wait to die. That cop looked me in the eye and said, "Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself after that?" Hey, that's a nice anecdote. I've got one too. One time this guy brought his gun to church, and he accidentally shot a young girl (the pastor's daughter, actually) in the head and killed her while showing it to a friend. He had a concealed weapons permit and everything, and being such a well-trained individual he was thus a guaranteed deterrent against church violence. I wonder how hard it was for him to live with himself after that?

     Some individuals would be horrified if they knew this police officer was carrying a weapon in church. They might call him paranoid and would probably scorn him. Weird. Yet these same individuals would be enraged and would call for "heads to roll" if they found out that the airbags in their cars were defective, or that the fire extinguisher and fire sprinklers in their kids' school did not work, or if some lunatic didn't have to pass a psych test before getting a concealed weapons permit. They can accept the fact that fires and traffic accidents can happen and that there must be safeguards against them. Their only response to the wolf, though, is denial, and all too often their response to the sheepdog is scorn and disdain. But the sheepdog quietly asks himself, "Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself if your loved ones were attacked and killed, and you had to stand there helplessly because you were unprepared for that day?" Or how hard it would be to live with yourself if, as a church pastor, you encouraged your "flock" to bring their concealed weapons to church and then some moron shot your daughter? "Shit," you'd say, "If only guns were better regulated."

     The warrior must cleanse denial from his thinking. Coach Bob Lindsey, a renowned law enforcement trainer, says that warriors must practice "when/then" thinking, not "if/when." Instead of saying, “If it happens then I will take action," the warrior says, "When it happens then I will be ready."

     It is denial that turns people into sheep. Sheep are psychologically destroyed by combat because their only defense is denial, which is counterproductive and destructive, resulting in fear, helplessness and horror when the wolf shows up. Yes but, there are many truths about life which one can deny. If you deny that more guns mean more death, period, are you really a sheepdog? This denial turns you into a sheep of another kind. If you deny that US policies have had a direct effect on the desire for terrorists to attack us in the first place, what kind of sheep are you then? (I don't like Ron Paul, but when even right wing nuts like him start accepting facts, gun nuts like Grossman ought to do some soul-searching.)

     Denial kills you twice. It kills you once, at your moment of truth when you are not physically prepared: You didn't bring your gun; you didn't train. Your only defense was wishful thinking. Hope is not a strategy. Denial kills you a second time because even if you do physically survive, you are psychologically shattered by fear, helplessness, horror and shame at your moment of truth. This is where he really begins equating sheepdog-ness with gun-carrying. If you don't know how to use a gun and you don't have it with you, you are a sheep. Granted, he appears to be addressing cops and soldiers and if he was talking only about cops and soldiers being prepared in the line of duty then he would be far more difficult to argue with. But Grossman goes on the circuit on a regular basis in favor of the second amendment and more guns more guns! Guns in schools! Guns in church! If everyone had a gun and was prepared to use it, what could go wrong?

     Chuck Yeager, the famous test pilot and first man to fly faster than the speed of sound, says that he knew he could die. There was no denial for him. He did not allow himself the luxury of denial. This acceptance of reality can cause fear, but it is a healthy, controlled fear that will keep you alive:

     "I was always afraid of dying. Always. It was my fear that made me learn everything I could about my airplane and my emergency equipment_ and kept me flying respectful of my  machine and always alert in the cockpit."

-Brigadier General Chuck Yeager

Yeager, An Autobiography

     Gavin de Becker puts it like this in Fear Less, his superb post-9/11 book, which should be required reading for anyone trying to come to terms with our current world situation:

".. Denial can be seductive, but it has an insidious side effect. For all the peace of mind deniers think they get by saying it isn't so, the fall they take when faced with new violence is all the more unsettling. Denial is a save-now-pay-later scheme, a contract written entirely in small print, for in the long run, the denying person knows the truth on some level."

     And so the warrior must strive to confront denial in all aspects of his life, and prepare himself for the day when evil comes. How about confronting the denial that the world is an extremely dangerous place in large part thanks to US policies? And that perhaps the best way to get terrorists to stop being terrorists is to stop terrorising them?

     If you are a warrior who is legally authorized to carry a weapon and you step outside without that weapon, then you become a sheep, pretending that the bad man will not come today. No one can be "on" 24/7 for a lifetime. Everyone needs down time. But if you are authorized to carry a weapon, and you walk outside without it, just take a deep breath, and say this to yourself... "Baa." Todd Beamer walked out without a gun, and so did Chuck Yeager, two men he held up as prime examples of sheepdogs. Apparently you don't need a gun in order to combat either fear or terrorists, after all. I get that he's making a larger point about readiness, which I actually agree with. But his point about weaponry is erratic and full of bullet holes, and he is trying to falsely equate the two things. Bad things will happen, yes. But be strong and face life with your chin up and your eyes open, not with your mind closed and hiding behind a gun. In any case, Grossman's attempt to claim every hero as a sheepdog and then to turn around and say that real sheepdogs all carry guns is schizophrenic.

     This business of being a sheep or a sheepdog is not a yes-no dichotomy. It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees, a continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-grass sheep and on the other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the other. Most of us live somewhere in between. Since 9-11 almost everyone in America took a step up that continuum, away from denial. The sheep took a few steps toward accepting and appreciating their warriors and the warriors started taking their job more seriously. The degree to which you move up that continuum, away from sheephood and denial, is the degree to which you and your loved ones will survive, physically and psychologically at your moment of truth. Ah, the halcyon days of post 9-11. If only people lived in fear like that every day, and more easily allowed the eroding of civil liberties and the ascention of authoritative fascists bent on manipulating us through those fears. It's true, if I don't have a gun I might be less safe from terrorists or mass-murderers. But with a gun, I've surrendered my confidence to a piece of metal. I choose to carry my manhood somewhere else. Speaking in terms that Grossman would understand, I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees. In any case, there are no easy answers to Dave Grossman's deep and disturbing fears, but he is in a denial just as debilitating as that he envisions the rest of us are in when it comes to the reasoning of "wolves" and the best options for solving our problems of violence. He clearly holds a simple view of good and evil, cannot conceive that his "side" is not the Light Brigade, and thus can abide only a simple, aggressive solution and will deny that anyone who thinks differently is anything other than a sheep.

Drunken Atheism. Try This At Home, Kids.

    Pray for me. Tell me that may God have mercy on my soul. Beg for my forgiveness, on your knees. Abase yourself, O Heavenly slave! All for me. Because you love me, though I'm a stranger and a sinner and a heathen in need of God's love and understanding. Drink Christ's blood, slurp his divinely creamy intestines like fettuccine, slathered in alfredo sauce! Beg Jesus for my heart on a platter, because you care! Implore the Holy Spirit to jump my fucking bones! Better to be anally raped by a ghost than triple-tined in the urinary tract by Satan! It's all for me! Because you're SO concerned for ME! You're so kind. Thank you random online Christian proselytizer! I really appreciate it. Don't forget to block me from replying to you on the way out, otherwise I might have commented on the picture of your forearm, on which you tattooed the name of Yahweh, in Hebrew. You clearly fear being charged with a 'may god have mercy on YOUR OWN soul.' Leviticus 19:28 - "You shall not make any cuts in your body for the dead nor make any tattoo marks on yourselves: I am the LORD."

    I feed on the delicious inconsistencies of believers. I am the anti-christ, I am mammon, that which you fear. Not because I say so, but because you fear it and declare it so. To which, I respond, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! Whatever. Fuck you. I need to finish my game of Dragon Warrior IV.

What ARE They Teaching Them In Schools These Days?

    As part of my month in California, I spent a couple of weeks in Barstow where there is... not much. A lot of pretty desert rocks, a tiny portion of kitchy Route 66, and a drive-in movie theater. Which, in the desert, is a pretty spectacular thing to do. Also, Fort Irwin; that's where my job was, hence the astounding tank crossing sign. Anyway, I have more pictures and not much else to say about the trip so, enjoy some blogfill on using critical thought in History class.

    Please post at least two paragraphs on the role of Native American Indians in the early history of the American Republic, particularly with regard to the rise of Tecumseh and Indian Nationalism. Consider as well the role of the tribes in the War of 1812.

_____________________________________________________________________________

 

It seems to me that Native Americans primarily played the role of an annoyance who were in the way of white men taking what they wanted, with regards to the way they are described in the histories of America at the time. At best they were portrayed as “noble savages” by the likes of President Jefferson, deserving of white education and civilization with the lofty and smug goal of eventual assimilation. At worst they were demonized as simply murderous savages, and there seemed to be a great big blind spot with regards to why, exactly, the Indians were always attacking white settlements, or at the very least a shameless lack of guilt. Imagine if I came over to your house, uninvited, took all your stuff and then said I was doing you a favor by letting you stay in the basement! This is what the colonists did, in effect, and we shouldn’t be the least bit surprised that they sometimes got a bit pissed about it.

During the lead-up to the war of 1812, Tenskwatawa, a Shawnee, had a religious revelation after giving up alcohol. He saw the influence of the whites in his homeland as a great evil, and he and his brother Tecumseh worked to make a confederation of Native Americans in order to stop the invader’s gluttonous westward expansion into their lands. They were helped in this by the British, who were trying to harry and distract American troops in aid to their own war. Once the Americans had secured several important and bloody victories over the Indian Tribes, they were free to direct their fuller attention toward the British.

 

 

 

Author: Jenna

Posted Date:

Tuesday, February 26, 2013 4:26:28 PM EST

Something I'm curious about, with the slaughtering of women and children at the Battle of Horseshoe Bend...that part seemed to me to jump out the most in the chapter, and it seems like it also did for you. Maybe because it seemed that they had possibly gotten past these ways, but I'm curious if the Native Americans also used these tactics when raiding white settlements. My guess is yes, they did, and I might have overlooked if the book had ever pointed out a case in which they did. And if the book didn't say anything about it, and it did happen, I'm wondering if they chose to leave it out in order to make Americans during that time seem more barbaric than the Native Americans to people today. While I agree that the Native Americans had a right to be angry for the white settlers driving them off their land, it seems to me that both sides were guilty in that aspect. Maybe this is one of those cases where, since we were not there at the time, history can be a bit biased, when in reality showing both sides may spark a different reaction. The way I see it, it seems that Native Americans and white settlers were both hostile from the very beginning, and both sides were equally responsible for the way things turned out. I'm also curious if the warriors in the Battle of Horseshoe Bend tried to use their women and children in battle as some people do today, with whom America is in conflict with...as human shields. Maybe there was slaughtering of the women and children in general, but I might have to do some research (or maybe the Professor can clear this up for me), it seems that this situation might not be so black and white. Either way, yes, it is not right that women and children were killed in the battle. But it might not have been completely the American's fault.

And to clear up the "human shield" part, I'm talking about people using their women and children basically as canon fodder in their battle, maybe not literally using them as a shield.

Author: messiestobjects

Posted Date:

Tuesday, February 26, 2013 7:39:27 PM EST

      You pose an interesting point Jenna, but there are some unpleasant matters to consider when you ask if American Indians are also guilty of murdering women and children. The first point is that the colonists were the aggressors: they came here, took lands, and continued to push the Indians out of the lands of their ancestors.
      The second point is that the Natives were a nomadic tribal society. They traveled the continent as need dictated, hunted, gathered, and survived as a warrior society, and lived in large but diverse family units. When they were threatened, they fought or ran. Killing women and children in what they saw as the defense of their home, their very way of life was not hypocritical or immoral in their world view, it was simply what they had to do to survive, to keep the whites from stealing any more from them.
     The third point is that, for a nation claiming to be democratic, where everyone is equal, it was simply another hypocritical evil act—in addition to being slave-owners—to kill women and children who simply refused to accept our tyranny.
     I am not trying to debate the relative morality of killing defenseless women and children, and that is not what Native American "apologia" is trying to do. Rather, it is the attempt to point out that these kind of blatantly greedy, self-serving- and utterly hypocritical acts of the United States should never be accepted as justified, or we risk continuing the acceptance of evil committed in our name for now, then and any future acts which fit such apologetic criteria. In other words, if we really desire to be the bastion of freedom, a democratic gold standard for justice and blah blah blah, then we can't be blind to our own mistakes, or we will never really be worthy of anything other than destruction at the hands of other rebellions trying to slay a wicked dragon.

 

 

 

Author: Jenna  

Posted Date:

Tuesday, February 26, 2013 9:36:35 PM EST

I can definitely see your point, they would want to point out that what Americans did was not right, but my point is how history can be a bit biased. And not saying that is wrong, maybe it is probably a case of that information having never been recorded. While yes you can consider us coming to the New World a mistake, others may not think so. I think it would have been inevitable. Now some of the ways that Americans went about things (slavery, converting, raiding, etc) were wrong, but some of what happened was inevitable and needs to be seen from their point of view, and the book does not do much of that. Now, the way I see it, Americans had the hostility and were pushing them back because they did not trust them, for the most part. And I don't think that's crazy...is it right? No, but this is where I point out that it isn't a black-and-white situation. The Native American's were not a completely civil people when we arrived here, and people became prejudiced against them. And that is why I think both sides are at fault, and personally I'd like to hear more of the wrongs on both sides, not just the Americans. I think the Native Americans could have done things differently in the beginning too, and things like this could have been avoided, just like if Americans had done things differently. Now specifically about the Battle of Horseshoe Bend...I would have preferred to read about both sides, and maybe the other side isn't there to read...but I'm thinking that if the Indians had in fact stood behind their innocents in the battle, who is really at fault here? In my mind, it's both. Definitely a messed up situation, but the Americans were also fighting to protect what they believed in...so are they more wrong for doing it, or are the Indians more wrong for allowing their women and children to stand in front of them? I guess we'll never know the whole story, but in my opinion they were both wrong.

 

Author: History Professor  

Posted Date:

Wednesday, February 27, 2013 1:52:03 PM EST

Jenna, you are correct in arguing that history is frequently subjective (but I don't think biased) in that historians interpret evidence in different ways.  It is certainly true that not all Indian societies were alike.  Some were nomadic, others sedentary, some hunters, others farmers.  In addition, some were relatively peaceful and others more war like.  The Comanches and Teton Sioux (Lakota) were particularly violent societies, protective of their land and willing to fight back and remove those who tried to take it.  Like other human societies, Indians were territorial and protective of their homelands,

That said, it is difficult to argue that both "sides" take equal responsibility for atrocities committed during the Indian wars.  What were sometimes described as 'battles' in the common lexicon and the press were more often punitive attacks against Indian villages to demoralize and exterminate them.  Horseshoe Bend is a good example of that type of assault.  It was a brutal attack on the Creeks and their allies, and as far as we know, the Indians never used their children and women as "human shields."  Jefferson, Jackson and others of that time were intent on removing the Eastern tribes from their ancestral lands to make room for white settlements.  They enjoyed a superiority in numbers and weaponry that made that removal all but certain.  Very few Americans at that time objected to whatever tactics were used to accomplish that goal.  In the long run, the Eastern tribes (and later the western tribes) never had a chance.

Author: messiestobjects

Posted Date:

Wednesday, February 27, 2013 9:42:16 AM EST

 The problem though Jenna is that you are trying to ascribe equivalent moral value to any atrocities that the Indians committed vs. the same ones that whites committed. Look at it this way:

         My neighbor Tom and his wife Diane invite my family over for dinner. They have a 6 year-old daughter, we have a 6 year-old boy. We go over, have a nice dinner, notice that they have an old tiny black & white TV. After dinner, we attack them, slaughter the daughter, rape and murder Diane, and then tie up Tom and throw him in the basement. My wife and I say to each other, "Can you effing believe it?! Black and white TV?!!" As we move into their house, and bring in our glorious 60-inch HD Internet ready TV and surround system, Tom manages to escape from the basement and go get some friends. They come back and murder my son, rape and kill my wife, and I get away. Then I cry for justice because hey, they murdered women and children too.

         You see, there's a difference. Maybe not a great one in the sense that rape and murder are never "moral," but there is one in that it does actually matter who is the aggressor and who is the defender. In regards to your situation where the Indians stood behind their innocents... Well I wasn't there but maybe they thought that even the white devil couldn't be so depraved as to murder women and children in battle, or perhaps they were sending a message to the white man that if you are going to take our lands, you must be forced to face the cost of what you are really taking from us, our very lives, and families. Indians often had an odd sense of honor that way. In any case, the Americans were fighting because they believed they had a right to land that belonged to a people who were already living on it. If you can equate "what they believed in" to what the Indians believed in, then I'm afraid we will never come to an agreement on this.

Author: Jenna  

Posted Date:

Wednesday, February 27, 2013 1:13:24 PM EST

 Well I think we just have different views on who provoked the violence, and yes it is a valid assumption that it was completely the fault of the "white devil" since Native Americans were here first. But Native Americans also had a chance to coexist with the Americans, and instead they would not accept their ways just like the Americans wouldn't accept theirs. Now thinking that whites were horrible for taking land means you should probably think that the tribes that waged war over land well before whites came to America were horrible too. So in reality it's just humanity in general that gets this way. I think we can agree on that.

Author: messiestobjects

Posted Date:

Wednesday, February 27, 2013 2:00:04 PM EST

 I understand your position, but my main problem here is that you are trying to ascribe a moral system to the Indians that simply doesn't exist. The Indians never claimed to be Democratic, or to have a bill of Rights, or to be particularly moral according to any definition that the whites were trying to impose. They were a free people, and their only code of morals when dealing with the invaders was one of survival. The fact that the natives were willing to welcome and even help the first settlers says a lot about their overall human morals. They did not begin the aggression, the colonists did, and it's not the case that the Natives wouldn't accept American ways, just like it's not the case that my neighbor Tom wouldn't accept my gift of an HD TV.

     I agree that human nature is generally monstrous, but that's only an excuse for the Colonists in this case. All else being equal, it was the Americans who broke the peace, and behaved in a monstrous manner towards the Natives. Acting in defense does not have the same moral failing.

 

Author: Jenna  

Posted Date:

Wednesday, February 27, 2013 8:16:53 PM EST

So I can see what you're saying except for the moral code part...so just because they weren't as advanced as the whites were, they should have gotten a free pass for any violence they would have shown? And I'm definitely in no way saying that the Americans were not horrible for the things they did, I'm trying to point out that neither side was completely innocent. Having the morals we have now and how that seems completely barbaric to us, it may not have been that way back then. I'm trying to put myself in their situation (the Europeans/Americans)...what would have made them snap at the Indians like that? I mean personally, if I showed up in America and saw some of the tribes actually sacrifice their own people, I probably would have been a little cautious too. And I understand that wasn't all of them and some Europeans might have just wanted the Native Americans gone because they were different, but sometimes there are just horrible people that do horrible things (and so we learn to not do those things when we look back). Now the Native Americans aren't wrong for defending their land, that's not my point either...basically I'm just saying that it's people, some people can be horrible in general. And since we are just learning about American history, obviously we are going to be taught what the Americans did and what they did wrong, but in some parts I think having knowledge of how the Native Americans had acted or did would have been helpful in understanding the past even more.
        I don't think we'll ever come to an agreement because you think that it was absolutely the whites that started the violence, I think it could have been the Native Americans (you're kind of reinforcing it by saying they basically had no moral code), but we'll never really know...and Europeans are not any less at fault if the Native Americans had started it, they could have just left...but that's the point, they weren't going too, they saw things differently than the Native Americans did. You say it's okay for the Native Americans to have a certain frame of mind and that excuses their actions, but so did the Americans, and yet they are the ones you find completely at fault. That's why I'm trying to think of how all of this could have happened, what could have made them tick...to me it seems both are at fault, it's just one of them was more advanced and gained control in the end. Yes, it's horrible, but it's history...it's messy with everyone, not just Americans. And of course, knowing what was wrong with your specific country's past is good to learn so that it is not repeated, and I don't have a problem with that, I think that is a great thing. Just kind of wondering about the things that are left out, which we will probably never know.

Author: messiestobjects

Posted Date:

Wednesday, February 27, 2013 11:23:00 PM EST

      I think you're mixing up the American Indians of the north with the Aztecs... American Indians didn't perform human sacrifice, to the best of my knowledge. Also, I did not say that they had no moral code, I said that you can't judge them based on what your own morals are, and that their morals were, in the 1812 era, entirely survival based.

      I will agree with you that a more detailed history of the Americas written from the Indian's perspective would be great, but I don't think that it would contain what you're looking for. I do find the Colonists entirely at fault for the genocide of the Indians, the same way I find the Nazis entirely at fault for the genocide of European Jews during WWII.
 
     Rather than continue on in this vein however, let me ask a question. You say that it seems to you that the Natives are as much at fault for their own destruction as the colonists, but what is this feeling based on? Where is your evidence for this claim? As far as I can see, there is no factual evidence that supports your interpretation.

 

Author: Jenna

Posted Date:

Thursday, February 28, 2013 12:22:03 AM EST

 

My point of this entire thing was to say that I'm curious about the whole story. Simple as that, and if what I found if we knew the whole story was that the Native Americans were completely innocent human beings who absolutely accepted the Europeans when they came here, then I'd 100% agree with you. I'm saying as far as accepting one another, neither side did a good job of that, that is why this happened, and I'm curious about exactly why neither side would compromise. That is what I'm basing it on.
        I think we are here arguing because you are telling me what happened as far as history knows, and I'm telling you that I'm curious about why those things happened the way they did, the things that history wouldn't necessarily know. This seems a bit silly...lol.

 

Author:  History Professor

Posted Date:

Friday, March 1, 2013 8:41:08 AM EST

These events and their causes are pretty well documented, Jenna.  What you are saying relative to shared responsibility makes sense; atrocities were committed by both sides.  However, the Native American population throughout the hemisphere was decimated (literally--perhaps 90% of them had died following the European settlement).  They had a very strong moral code, but couldn't understand and would not accept the notion that the US was entitled to their lands.  It's a classic case of a clash between civilizations with very different definitions of what it meant to be human and civilized.  To the Indians, the American were barbarians; to the Americans, the Indians were savages, and heathens (non-Christians) as well.  Given those mind sets, there was very little room for compromise or a peaceful permanent resolution to their differences.

Author: messiestobjects

Posted Date:

Saturday, March 2, 2013 9:14:10 AM EST 

      Ok Jenna, but here's the problem. Your initial statement that started this whole thing off was this:
     "I'm curious if the Native Americans also used these tactics when raiding white settlements. My guess is yes, they did, and I might have overlooked if the book had ever pointed out a case in which they did. And if the book didn't say anything about it, and it did happen, I'm wondering if they chose to leave it out in order to make Americans during that time seem more barbaric than the Native Americans to people today."
     This is why I finally asked you for the evidence that you were basing your suppositions on. You can't just say something like, 'there's no evidence for what I choose to believe, but I'm going to guess that there is evidence out there somewhere, and then build a wild theory on top of it.' Without evidence as a starting point, you've got nothing, you've built a tower on quicksand. That's not to say you're necessarily wrong in your suppositions, but until you can come up with something tangible to back up your claim, your idea that Indians might share as much blame in the atrocities of that time period as the colonists is then simply a religious belief, in the sense that you're basing your claim on faith rather than reality.

Author: Jenna

Posted Date:

Sunday, March 3, 2013 6:19:43 PM EST

 I am definitely allowed to have my own opinion, and you saying the they have a "survival" moral code tells me you think they were capable of it too. This is not a wild theory, I'm saying that I'm curious about the Indians having committed some of those acts, whether or not you think they're actions were justified (and I'd like to point out I never said EITHER sides actions were justified, or that the Native Americans were not). Like the professor said, this was a collision of cultures. And I never said that evidence was out there, it is something I was curious about. My theory (or rather a question, not a whole theory) came from the (very few) comments in the book on the hostility from the Native Americans. If you want to take everything as it is shown and not question whether there are other sources out there that may have better insight, I'd say you're argument against me is more based on faith. I think what you're trying to say is I'm religious (I'm not) and that I'm trying to act like my statement is fact. And by the way, in reality we do not have ALL the facts, so arguing with me about something I'm curious about when you can't even prove it wrong is going to get you nowhere.

  Author: messiestobjects

Posted Date:

Sunday, March 3, 2013 8:24:34 PM EST

  I am definitely allowed to have my own opinion,
Absolutely. But opinions are only as good as the facts they are based on.

and you saying the they have a "survival" moral code tells me you think they were capable of it too.
What?

This is not a wild theory, I'm saying that I'm curious about the Indians having committed some of those acts, whether or not you think they're actions were justified
Which acts? The ones you made up about them using women and children as shields, or the murders they committed in the defense of their way of life?

(and I'd like to point out I never said EITHER sides actions were justified, or that the Native Americans were not).
No, you just said that the Indians may be equally as culpable as the settlers for the war between them.

Like the professor said, this was a collision of cultures.
Agreed, but this has no bearing on our discussion.

And I never said that evidence was out there, it is something I was curious about.
Well that's part of your problem right there. I am curious whether or not there are alien life forms living beneath the icy surface of Europa, but I'm not about to argue with anyone about what color they are. What I mean is, arguing about the nature of something (whether the Indians committed certain atrocities) when you don't even know whether it exists or not (no evidence for such a supposition exists) is rather like flogging a dead horse.

My theory (or rather a question, not a whole theory) came from the (very few) comments in the book on the hostility from the Native Americans.
These comments in the book would count as evidence towards your theory... when I asked what your evidence for your suppositions is, that would have been a good time to quote them, so we could discuss their relevance in regard to your proposal.

If you want to take everything as it is shown and not question whether there are other sources out there that may have better insight, I'd say you're argument against me is more based on faith.
Nonsense. I am always open to new evidence, and I will gladly change my opinion if such evidence that I was previously unaware of suggests that I should. That's why I asked you for some. You've created what is known as a straw man argument here by suggesting that I don't want to hear any information that might go against what I believe in, and this indeed would be a faith based argument. But simply wondering aloud whether any evidence exists which might back up a claim that YOU made, and then saying that I am the one making a faith-based argument because I won't go out and find it is disingenuous. It is up to you to find evidence to support your claim, not me, and in any case if it is an authoritative argument that you want, the Professor also said that the facts from the time are pretty well known and he didn't seem to think that your supposition had any merit.

I think what you're trying to say is I'm religious (I'm not) and that I'm trying to act like my statement is fact.
No. I was using religion as an analogy. Also, you are not acting like your statement is fact, you are acting like your supposition has merit (which is different), and what I am saying is that without any evidence, your supposition has no merit.

And by the way, in reality we do not have ALL the facts, so arguing with me about something I'm curious about when you can't even prove it wrong is going to get you nowhere.
You keep saying that you were only saying that you were curious about this, but that isn't really how this whole thing went. You did ask a question in your original response to me, and I disagreed. You disagreed right back and so on... That's the nature of a debate. If you want to bow out because this argument is getting you nowhere, that's fine, but I actually quite enjoy debates of this sort as muddy thinking bothers me, and I get a kick out of pointing it out whenever someone engages in it. But to really drive the point home, you are saying that I can't prove you wrong because we don't have all the facts. How about this? I believe that there is a tiny bright green elephant who orbits a planet in a galaxy 30 billion light years away who sends people to hell for all eternity for saying that the American Indians share equal blame in their own genocide. You can't prove that I'm wrong to believe this, therefore my belief has merit. You might as well not even argue with me because it's just something I'm curious about. Now, you might think I'm being ridiculous for being curious about something so... ridiculous, but that is exactly what you or anyone else is doing when they try to assert an opinion or a supposition without any reason backing it up. As Christopher Hitchens so famously said, what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

 

Author: History Professor

Posted Date:

Monday, March 4, 2013 8:28:00 AM EST

Edited Date:

Monday, March 4, 2013 8:28:00 AM EST

 

Interesting rebuttal,  messiestobjects , but there is a line between a spirited discussion and a cross examination.  I'm not saying that you crossed it, but you're close.

 

Author: messiestobjects

Posted Date:

Monday, March 4, 2013 11:31:56 AM EST

 I'm sorry that you think so, Professor. My motive is simply that I enjoy a spirited debate, but when bad logic enters the discussion it has to be pointed out, or the debate can't go anywhere.

 

Author: Jenna

Posted Date:

Monday, March 4, 2013 12:46:17 PM EST

Well this is just laughable now.

 

Author: messiestobjects

Posted Date:

Monday, March 4, 2013 1:26:59 PM EST

 On that, at least, we can agree.