lowbrow said:

JW123 said:

The people who preach free speech on the right to say hateful words sure got their balls in a bunch when anyone said anything negative about Charlie Kirk after his murder.

---

Ya, my team got people fired for celebrating political murder, if you celebrate murder in a public format attached to your full name you might get fired. 

---

Quote:

Nearly one in three men in ancient tribal societies died a violent death, yet modern history has completely romanticized this bloody reality. As someone of Choctaw heritage, I believe it is time to look at actual history rather than the myths and propaganda of recent decades.

Scholars like Azar Gat in the magnificent "War in Human Civilization" have documented that life in early tribal societies—whether in Australia, Europe, Africa, Asia, or the Americas—was intensely violent. Male mortality rates averaged around thirty percent due to relentless raids, tribal rivalries, and territorial battles. Women and children lived under constant threat of captivity and violence. Driven by a harsh survival dilemma where striking first was often the only way to avoid destruction, tribes remained locked in perpetual warfare. In contrast to the rate of thirty thousand violent deaths per hundred thousand people in early hunter-gatherer eras, modern civilized societies average around ten per hundred thousand. Imagine being 3,000 times more likely to die from violence than you are today!

Families fought families, tribal groups fought tribal groups, and nations fought nations. Land was constantly being gained or lost by every group at every level. Every bit of land in the world changed hands thousands of times and only strength of arms and luck held it for any given period.

When the Romans expanded into ancient Europe, or when European settlers established modern communities in the Americas, the eventual result—despite initial periods of deep conflict—was a dramatic fall in violent death, improved food stability, and longer lifespans. The modern notion that early tribes lived in effortless harmony with nature overlooks the reality of resource exhaustion, constant relocation, and intense territorial feuds. Few people today would genuinely swap modern sanitation, medicine, and physical security for a life marked by clean water shortages, famine, and fear of midnight raids.

The idea that any single ethnic group holds permanent rights to land also ignores the realities of global history. From ancient Athens and Rome to the Huns, territorial control throughout human history has been decided by force. Every bit of land on the planet has changed hands countless times between families, between tribes, and between larger organized groups. In fact, compared to the total destruction or enslavement typical of conquest in antiquity (see Carthage, Melos, Yazidis, WW2 European Jews, the Congolese, the Tsutsi, etc), Native American tribes were treated relatively well and survived and adapted within the modern era.

All of us have ancestors who killed others and stole land at various points, should we all be put on trial for our ancestors? And how do we decide which ancestors matter? Should Italians pay reparations to Germans for Rome conquering the Goths? Should the Germans pay the Italians reparations for reconquering that same territory centuries later? Should the Qin or Jin or Mongols or Mings in China pay other ethnic groups? You can see how ridiculous this gets when you look at it outside of America.

Today, official tribal entities receive billions in taxpayer funding alongside exclusive business privileges, giving special interest groups a strong financial reason to preserve these simplified narratives. Those of us with tribal heritage who sit outside these official organizations can speak clearly about these realities without fear of being silenced by false accusations of racism. I applied to join the Choctaw tribe, but since my great great grandmother did not reside on the reservation (she had moved to Los Angeles to find work) in the year 1906, I was refused. The core promise of the Civil Rights movement was to eradicate government discrimination and treatment based on race. Continuing special privileges, handouts, or race-based policy only fuels resentment and keeps historical grievances alive. Attempts to increase racism through false "land acknowledgements" and claims of stolen land are evil. True equality means treating every person as an individual under the law, moving past old divisions, and focusing on a shared future.

America is a country that was founded to have a fair and merit based system where anyone in the country could earn their own way, buy their own land, and build their own lives. Moving away from that and confiscating land and cash from our citizens based on things their far distant ancestors at one particular point in time did to give it to others whose ancestors may or may not have had something happen is ridiculous. Do we confiscate money and land from the Iroquois to give it to the Huron? Do we take from the Sioux to give it to the Crow? We need to end this racist foolishness and move forward as a country.

Joel Gross
  ·
 
Author

---

TL/DR -  I'm butthurt from my recent loss at an Indian casino

CrAcKbAbY said:

---

Quote:

The arrival of the Comanche into the southern Plains, however, changed the balance of power dramatically. Originally part of the Eastern Shoshone in the northern Rockies, the Comanche broke away and migrated southward in the late 1600s, driven partly by the acquisition of the horse, which revolutionized their way of life. Expert horsemen, the Comanche rapidly adapted to mounted warfare and hunting, becoming dominant over the vast expanses of the southern Plains by the early 18th century. Their newfound mobility gave them a significant military advantage over other tribes, including the Apache.

---

CrAcKbAbY said:

---