Originally posted by Great Big SteesMaybe there was a "bad word" hiding in some word, like the infamous 'wristwatch' or the polite past form of Japanese verbs ('-mashi-ta'😉?
I tried to copy and paste from a website(the name escapes me now) and as soon as I tried to paste it I was told it was inappropriate. There really was nothing inappropriate in it.
Russ gave me some help:
Originally posted by Sam The Sham
Where did you hear that? I can't find any reference to such . Can you?
I just love it when people make up things because it suits their narrow minded "America is bad" ideology.
Some accounts of the Battle of the Latashia (misspelled because the correct word is the one flagged by th the bot), Custer's one major success in the West, claim that it was a massacre of old men, women, and children, as much as a battle against warriors. Even Custer admits there were some women and children killed.
Before engaging in the fight orders had been given to prevent the killing of any but the fighting strength of the village; but in a struggle of this character it is impossible at all times to discriminate, particularly when, in hand-to-hand conflict such as the one the troops were then engaged in the squaws are as dangerous adversaries as the warriors, while Indian boys between ten and fifteen years of age were found as expert and determined in the use of the pistol and bow and arrow as the older warriors. George A. Custer, My Life on the Plains (1952), 336.
Originally posted by Sam The Sham
I suppose you're going to claim the indians never attacked white settlements and killed all the women and children. Not to mention torturing them to death.
I cannot name a single non-Indian village wiped out by Indians, although I can name dozens of farms.
It is true that there were atrocities on both sides, but the overall conflict was quite one-sided--far more atrocities were perpetrated by the likes of the Reverend Colonel Chivington. Chivington, you may know, presided over the Sand Creek massacre against a village led by Black Kettle. The Colorado Volunteers mutilated women and engaged in unspeakable horrors. Black Kettle survived somehow until the remnants of his people now joined with others were slaughtered at the Battle of the Latashia.
You'd need to name specifics to convince me that any torture to death of women and children was conducted by Indians. That's not a very responsible generalization in comparison to the allegations against Custer, extreme though they are.
Originally posted by Wulebgrdo you know if custer and his contemporaries as a rule knew what 'squaw' means? I always thought the common mistranslation was born or at least spead on the 20th century, but here already custer himself is using it.
Before engaging in the fight orders had been given to prevent the killing of any but the fighting strength of the village; but in a struggle of this character it is impossible at all times to discriminate, particularly when, in hand-to-hand conflict such as the one the troops were then engaged in the squaws are as dangerous adversaries as the warriors, wh ...[text shortened]... and arrow as the older warriors. George A. Custer, My Life on the Plains (1952), 336.
then again, not very surprising considering the daily rapes...
Originally posted by wormwoodThere is quite a lot of controversy and confusion over the origins and usage of this word. To be honest, I don't know what is true as I'm hardly a scholar on this subject (or any subject).
do you know if custer and his contemporaries as a rule knew what 'squaw' means? I always thought the common mistranslation was born or at least spead on the 20th century, but here already custer himself is using it.
then again, not very surprising considering the daily rapes...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squaw
Originally posted by MrHandokay, thanks, that seems fairly convincing. although I must wonder how much written material from the 'other perspective' there would exist previous to the activists, and how much of it would end up in academic resources. all the texts I've ever seen concerning indians have been 'white'. and because it isn't like the dictionary-meaning of a word has ever made a slightest difference to what the real meaning is. like with 'rooster', 'donkey', 'tit', or their non-robomodded counterparts. and I've also seen so many other cover-ups on similar things that it wouldn't really surprise.
There is quite a lot of controversy and confusion over the origins and usage of this word. To be honest, I don't know what is true as I'm hardly a scholar on this subject (or any subject).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squaw
but so far that wiki-article seems plausible. I really don't know enough to think otherwise, and feel too lazy to check up the credibility of the wiki-sources.
where's our resident semi-hemi-demi-indian phlabs to set us straight?
Originally posted by MrHandThe Wikipedia article is not too bad. I might add statements by a few people that the Mohawk word otsiskwah which means it's slippery is a source of the term. See Katsi Cook, "The Coming of Anontaks" in Reinventing the Enemy's Language: Contemporary Native Women's Writings of North America, edited by Joy Harjo and Gloria Bird.
There is quite a lot of controversy and confusion over the origins and usage of this word. To be honest, I don't know what is true as I'm hardly a scholar on this subject (or any subject).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squaw
Originally posted by wormwoodWell, seems there is some truth to many aspects of that wiki article. The fact that many people feel that is derogatory is enough for me to avoid using the word.
okay, thanks, that seems fairly convincing. although I must wonder how much written material from the 'other perspective' there would exist previous to the activists, and how much of it would end up in academic resources. all the texts I've ever seen concerning indians have been 'white'. because it isn't like the dictionary-meaning of a word has ever made a ources.
where's our resident semi-hemi-demi-indian phlabs to set us straight?
However, it is interesting to me that the original usage does seem to be innocent of any mailce.
Originally posted by MrHandphlabs needs to TAKE IT BACK!
Well, seems there is some truth to many aspects of that wiki article. The fact that many people feel that is derogatory is enough for me to avoid using the word.
However, it is interesting to me that the original usage does seem to be innocent of any mailce.