It does not mean "of an African American". The largest lynching in the US was of Sicilians. The Old West was famous for lynchings as well
The Mound Builders had a city, Cahokia we now call it, of over 30,000 people near Collinsville, IL. That entire culture disappeared.
Yep. I agree. It’s just worked out where they get casino privileges. Not perfect, but is something. So as a country, I say run with it.
Well played. I have realized the error of my "weighs" and use it only in one way from now on.
Well then.
“Like many European explorers, Christopher Columbus encountered indigenous people throughout his voyages. There are three main sources of controversy involving his interactions with the indigenous people he labeled “Indians”: the use of violence and slavery, the forced conversion of native peoples to Christianity and the introduction of a host of new diseases that would have dramatic long-term effects on native people in the Americas.
Those of strictly Anglo-Saxon blood I guess should still hold a grudge against the Normans for conquering England.
Yep, Christopher Columbus did some really really bad things wherever he went. The issue with your account is, where he went.
It is the same hardships I suffered due to the Norman invasion and subsequent conquering of Saxon England when all my Saxon forefathers were dispossessed, our language relegated to that only spoken by the lower classes, atives were also removed from high governmental and ecclesiastical office etc, etc..............in short................none.
I only killed who the Romans didn't get around to killing. It is alleged by some that the Romans left in Britain later became the Welsh.
Getting "signed off by Abe Lincoln" implies that there was some form of due process. Not due process as known today, but a review by the president. He did commute 264 sentences. In the end, he allowed 38 executions. Originally 39, one was suspended due to new information that raised reasonable doubt on guilt.
I would use murder and executed for the description. When you hang, and I am not worried about the form, 38 Indians as a retaliation for an attack I can agree with the term. The act was totally not within our guidelines for justice. The best term I can use would be mass slayings.
The treatment of Native Americans has been been horrendous, long before Lincoln and has continued well after. That a completely different issue then whether these men were lynched.
After over 800 settlers had been killed, over 300 Dakota were convicted by military tribunal. All but 38 had their sentences commuted by the President.
The 300 convicted by the Military and not in court. I know it was okay in those days because we were at "war" but I am not opposed to those who saw it as murder or even call it a lynching. Having the President sign off on it does not make it necessarily right just legal for us. They were hung for crimes committed in war by the people who were at war with them. Just an angry mob reacting to the atrocities the other side committed.
Ah, got it. Those flexible definitions come in handy.
He landed in what is the West Indies Islands. They were referred to as the Americas. He encountered the indigenous natives there. He captured, enslaved many of them, thought they would be excellent servants. He took many of them back with him, with many dying along the way. When he arrived home he showed them to others. Later on as his other voyages set out America he discovered more indigenous natives. They were referred to in writings as Native Americans. They were from the lands known as the Americas. Eventually America became America by name. During all this time that it took to happen, indigenous natives were being captured and enslaved.
Did you mean to say one or the other? I’m confused if there is no typo......
Look dude, it’s no big deal, but “Native Americans” never encountered Columbus. Columbus landed in the Bahamas in 1492. The first time the word “Americas” ever appeared was in 1507.
Not flexible. The trials were done by the military afterwards in a haphazard way. The majority were let free but I am not sure this was a chance to execute deserters or anything like we were doing in WW2. I am just not sure we can call them foreign combatants and if they are citizens they are really not ours to prosecute.
I am saying we used the military tribunal on our citizens. "War" was not something I think we could have claimed at that time. It was just expedient and something we wanted done to avoid the further ramifications of trying them in the courts.
Absolutely flexible. You referred to mob justice. The Dakota warriors were executed after a trial by the military with the approval of the Commander in Chief. After reviewing the case, the President commuted 263 sentences and allowed 38 to be carried out. How many “mobs” do you recall, finding 301 people guilty, sentencing them to death, allowing an authority to review the convictions and sentences, adhering to the authorities findings and altering the sentences 88% of those convicted? That’s a pretty controlled “mob” and the “mob”included Abraham Lincoln.
You seriously think he could have possibly looked at all the data and made a decision. The people wanted all dead, the military agreed and the President said no to all being killed.
Your questions unintentionally support the fact that it wasn’t a lynching. Why indeed? Why those 38? What was different?
The numbers suggest that they went mob rule and were going to kill them all. The only thing that could be done is say can you settle with these 38. Timeline just does not set up for the possibility of any of the trials being conducted in any depth even for a military tribunal. Say guilty and move on. That is what you do in a kangaroo court to justify the lynching.
So Lincoln was part of the “mob”. Cool. We disagree which I was confident we would when I asked my first question.
