
Lord Fyre RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32 |

Lord Fyre wrote:How about ...Do not get me wrong, I believe America to be one of the best countries in the world. I just feel it is important to recognize our mistakes so that we can learn from them.
But the way you started out this thread strongly gives the impression that this is about b#@*hing about how horrible and hypocritical America is. (The combination of your thread title and 1st post do lead to that appearance.)

Bill Lumberg |
The order was issued December 17, 1862. Withing one month a citizen met with the head of state and made his case against the unjust nature of the order and it was negated. The shame is that it was ordered. The shine is that it was rectified.
In some countries today an order of this sort can be ordered and it will stay in force until the government is overthrown by force.

The 8th Dwarf |

Every nation has its good and bad history. Australia has its fair share of miss-deeds and shining moments.
The important thing is not to hide the bad but to hold it as something to learn from.
It is also important to praise celebrate the good, so people will strive to emulate it.
Every time the US does something Boneheaded, greedy or ignorant, it is also usually doing something selfless, and generous somewhere else.
Every society has its "Saints" and "Sinners" and if you are pointing out somebodies faults then be prepared for your own to be exposed.

![]() |

Lord Fyre RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32 |

My ex brought up a good point in primary school (Elementary school to most Americans)
Why are all conflicts where the Native Americans won called "Massacres" when all conflicts where the invading forces won are called "Battles"?
He got taken to the principal's office for that.
Why?!
And what did the principle do?

The Thing from Beyond the Edge |

My ex brought up a good point in primary school (Elementary school to most Americans)
Why are all conflicts where the Native Americans won called "Massacres" when all conflicts where the invading forces won are called "Battles"?
He got taken to the principal's office for that.
But, the nomenclature mentioned above is not true for all battles/massacres.
Here is an important counter example:
Point being that this is probably the most famous of all battles between U.S. forces and the native Americans and the native Americans were completely victorious. It is known as the Battle of the Little Big horn and Custer's Last Stand but is not "named" a massacre. It is a "battle" or a "stand".
My guess is that across the population the name"The Battle of the Little Big Horn" will be known by far more people than the name of any individual "massacre".
But, I would not be surprised that many (maybe most) of the Indian victories would be referred to as "massacres". The naming of such battles/massacres occurred at the time they occurred. At the time they occurred, the ones keeping the records (and naming the battles) for an American victory were the members of the American media and the ones keeping the records (and naming the battles) for an American loss were the members of the American media.
It should not be surprising that American losses would be treated as massacres. But, when objectivity was later reached, historical significance had already been attached to the names. Changing the names of the past to match the objectivity of the present carries with it the problem of increasing the difficulty of indexing records (which used the original nomenclature...) associated with the event.

![]() |

Mikhaila Burnett wrote:My ex brought up a good point in primary school (Elementary school to most Americans)
Why are all conflicts where the Native Americans won called "Massacres" when all conflicts where the invading forces won are called "Battles"?
He got taken to the principal's office for that.
But, the nomenclature mentioned above is not true for all battles/massacres.
Here is an important counter example:
Not to mention The Sand Creek Massacre.

Steven Tindall |

My ex brought up a good point in primary school (Elementary school to most Americans)
Why are all conflicts where the Native Americans won called "Massacres" when all conflicts where the invading forces won are called "Battles"?
He got taken to the principal's office for that.
I was in a similar situation for pointing out the south actually won the first 3yrs of battle in the civil war and that until the north started brining in irish they were loseing badly. I also pointed out that lincon didnt care about slaves and was a big proponent of sending them all back to afica whether they liked it or not. Plus if you really read the writings of his famous proclamation he said if ANY southern state rejoined the union before the deadline they could keep there slaves(sounds like he was real anti-slavery)
My point is that the men back then were products of there time and trying to assign modern day political correctness to them is wrong. I dont endorse slavery,conquest of native peoples or genocide but I do like to dig into history for more than just a paragraph in a high school book on the subject.As for the principles office, I went there no one was there so I hung out in the library till class was over, nobody was any wiser that I had been sent to the office.

![]() |

Mikhaila Burnett wrote:My ex brought up a good point in primary school (Elementary school to most Americans)
Why are all conflicts where the Native Americans won called "Massacres" when all conflicts where the invading forces won are called "Battles"?
He got taken to the principal's office for that.
I was in a similar situation for pointing out the south actually won the first 3yrs of battle in the civil war and that until the north started brining in irish they were loseing badly. I also pointed out that lincon didnt care about slaves and was a big proponent of sending them all back to afica whether they liked it or not. Plus if you really read the writings of his famous proclamation he said if ANY southern state rejoined the union before the deadline they could keep there slaves(sounds like he was real anti-slavery)
I think it's safer to say Lincoln was 'pro-union' more than he was 'anti-slavery'. But to say he was not anti-slavery would be a mistake.

![]() |

Mikhaila Burnett wrote:My ex brought up a good point in primary school (Elementary school to most Americans)
Why are all conflicts where the Native Americans won called "Massacres" when all conflicts where the invading forces won are called "Battles"?
He got taken to the principal's office for that.
Why?!
And what did the principle do?
I'm not sure, honestly. It's been a long time since my ex told the story.
And to agree with upthread here, I know it's not ALWAYS true, but it's often true. *shrugs* The main point, I guess, is that by asking a question like that it didn't result in an answer, it resulted in disciplinary action.

Freehold DM |

Freehold DM wrote:... What? Where? *looks frantically online*Orthos wrote:Actually, I did try that chocolate bar with bits of bacon in it. Surprisingly delicious.Mikhaila Burnett wrote:Chocolate chip with bacon?........... What!?
Unfortunately it was picked up for me by a friend at a store when she was travelling cross country. I will look around, but I don't know if it's available online.

![]() |

Freehold DM wrote:<Sinistar>I HUNGER</Sinistar>
Unfortunately it was picked up for me by a friend at a store when she was travelling cross country. I will look around, but I don't know if it's available online.
You can get it HERE. My folks brought one to me a couple years ago. They made me taste it before telling me what it was. I knew the flavor, but could not put my finger on it in the context of a candy bar. Quite tasty I must say.

CourtFool |

The Battle of Little Robe Creek
Maybe this should be labeled shining moments in Texas history.

![]() |

The Battle of Little Robe Creek
Maybe this should be labeled shining moments in Texas history.
Courtfool the Dread Thread-o-mancer

NPC Dave |
According to this article, the Marshall Plan money was largely skimmed off by the CIA for its own purposes. Also it never was clear just how much the money that wasn't appropriated by the CIA did help European economies.
Also kind of odd that the US would pat itself on the back for the Marshall Plan even if it did help, considering it was US bombs that leveled Europe's industry in the first place.
But rather than being a shining or ignominious moment of American history, it can be more accurately summed up as an exaggeration by the guys who write the history books.