Mass Shootings

[BevoAbyss 2058]

38 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Have you read this book? I'd be interested to know his take on the relationship between Comanche raids and Anglo response.

I recall the main arguments, but not all the details and battles covered. Not a particularly well-written book (IMHO), but very scholarly. 400-500 pages, small font. I think it came out in hard cover in early 2000s. I had the book about 10-12 years ago, but did not have time to read it all. Life gets in the way. So much to read, so little time! 

Edited April 29, 2023 by BevoAbyss

[Bozo_Casanova 26451]

6 hours ago, YGIFS said:

5 dead in Texas.  including two who apparently suffered fatal shots trying to shield two children. 

But yes, yes.  "What about Chicago?"

Gunman used an AR-15 which I am told stands for 'A-Assault.  R-Rifle.'  

 

Abbott reacts to the news:

 

[royiv 9302]

5 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Abbott reacts to the news:

 

Like I said this morning, mass murder of immigrants won't move the needle in this state. Abbott is all smiles.

[Fastbreak 3985]

I feel sorry for that dog. It deserved better.

[miguelito 11263]

That dog has to walk himself.

[C-Man 27222]

14 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I don’t think people should be able to just carry guns around unlicensed in public precisely because of shit like this. Shooting people down in the street is dangerous and chaotic. 
 

In this case, the person who got shot was a total piece of shit who earned his money by pretending to be a parking lot attendant. He stole from people. I’m glad he’s dead. I’d convict the shooter for discharging a firearm in a city (or if we had tougher gun laws, I’d convict him for that). But never for murder or anything related to removing the world of this guy.  That guy’s life was not just cheap, it was negative value. 

You serious, Clark?

[staboner 4969]

holy shit i can't keep track of neighborly killings these days. is that like the 5th one in the last two weeks? 

gonna make sure i don't do walk/talk/think/look/act/smell anyone next door next visit. fucking hell

[Bookman 4639]

17 hours ago, shadow_operative said:

 

 

If you listen carefully, you can hear a scared kid say "I'm gonna die."

Jesus.

[yoladu 4094]

56 minutes ago, staboner said:

gonna make sure i don't do walk/talk/think/look/act/smell anyone next door next visit. fucking hell

that is how a society armed to the teeth is going to have to behave.

• Don't dare talk to someone, good chance you could get shot.
• Don't knock on someone's door, good chance you could get shot.
• Don't drive up a driveway mistakenly, good chance you could get shot.
• Don't look at someone funny, good chance you could get shot.
• Don't play baseball out in the open, good chance you could get shot.
• Don't go to your place of worship, good chance you could get shot.
• Don't attend a school, good chance you could get shot.

this is all learned behavior. I have learned not do these things if i want to give myself a good chance of continuing to live to a ripe old age. And as a result it is turning us into a pretty shitty society where we just dont physically interactive with anyone anymore, It's a threat to one's own very existence.

avoid, avoid, avoid.. stop doing those things.. stop interacting with people, it could get you killed.

It is changing our society and how we live, make no doubt of that.

Edited April 29, 2023 by yoladu

[Stilicho 1397]

16 minutes ago, yoladu said:

that is how a society armed to the teeth is going to have to behave.

• Don't dare talk to someone, good chance you could get shot.
• Don't knock on someone's door, good chance you could get shot.
• Don't drive up a driveway mistakenly, good chance you could get shot.
• Don't look at someone funny, good chance you could get shot.
• Don't play baseball out in the open, good chance you could get shot.
• Don't go to your place of worship, good chance you could get shot.
• Don't attend a school, good chance you could get shot.

this is all learned behavior. I have learned not do these things if i want to give myself a good chance of continuing to live to a ripe old age. And as a result it is turning us into a pretty shitty society where we just dont physically interactive with anyone anymore, It's a threat to one's own very existence.

avoid, avoid, avoid.. stop doing those things.. stop interacting with people, it could get you killed.

It is changing our society and how we live, make no doubt of that.

 Sort of feels like that's the world these maniacs really want. It's not about protection, it's about killing folks that you don't like.

If we can try to force everyone in society to believe that they need a gun, then we can have a bunch of duels like in the movies, and the guy that wins in the movie is the good guy / doesn't do time for murder. Somehow, if each party is carrying a gun, that makes the killing "fair".

Also, @DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt's explanation is just as plausible and much simpler:  it's all just make-believe cowboys v. indians bullshit to these people.

[4th&Five 41533]

 

[WhatTheBuck 28779]

1 hour ago, yoladu said:

that is how a society armed to the teeth is going to have to behave.

• Don't dare talk to someone, good chance you could get shot.
• Don't knock on someone's door, good chance you could get shot.
• Don't drive up a driveway mistakenly, good chance you could get shot.
• Don't look at someone funny, good chance you could get shot.
• Don't play baseball out in the open, good chance you could get shot.
• Don't go to your place of worship, good chance you could get shot.
• Don't attend a school, good chance you could get shot.

this is all learned behavior. I have learned not do these things if i want to give myself a good chance of continuing to live to a ripe old age. And as a result it is turning us into a pretty shitty society where we just dont physically interactive with anyone anymore, It's a threat to one's own very existence.

avoid, avoid, avoid.. stop doing those things.. stop interacting with people, it could get you killed.

It is changing our society and how we live, make no doubt of that.

Shoot first and ask questions later. 

[Celery Man 20943]

a million years ago I had a gig at the... copper pot? something like that, downtown austin, we were actually playing with More Cowbell totally independent of any shaggy stuff. Anyways, pull up with the van and the trailer and start loading in. I walk out and the guitarist is there with a guy he introduces by saying "this is larry he's going to help you park". I get in the van with Larry and start driving and he's pointing out random spots and alleys and shit that might work and I realize that rather than being employed by the venue in any capacity, he is just a fucking homeless guy and our guitarist is a goddamn moron. I gave him $10 and kicked him out of the van.

anyways, fuck greg abbot

[Dark Horse 2280]

https://13wham.com/amp/news/nation-world/police-11-shot-injured-during-mass-shooting-at-south-carolina-park-multiple-calibers-injury-gunshot-hospital-doctor-public-safety-health-gun-violence-gun-control-pistol-handgun-marijuana-failure-to-stop
 

[Satchel 6938]

2 hours ago, yoladu said:

that is how a society armed to the teeth is going to have to behave.

• Don't dare talk to someone, good chance you could get shot.
• Don't knock on someone's door, good chance you could get shot.
• Don't drive up a driveway mistakenly, good chance you could get shot.
• Don't look at someone funny, good chance you could get shot.
• Don't play baseball out in the open, good chance you could get shot.
• Don't go to your place of worship, good chance you could get shot.
• Don't attend a school, good chance you could get shot.

this is all learned behavior. I have learned not do these things if i want to give myself a good chance of continuing to live to a ripe old age. And as a result it is turning us into a pretty shitty society where we just dont physically interactive with anyone anymore, It's a threat to one's own very existence.

avoid, avoid, avoid.. stop doing those things.. stop interacting with people, it could get you killed.

It is changing our society and how we live, make no doubt of that.

So, when are supposed to pursue life, liberty and happiness?

[Horn Dog 9840]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/04/29/cleveland-texas-gunman-kills-five-8-year-old/

“When I heard those gunshots, I didn’t think anything of it because in this neighborhood everyone has guns. Every weekend you hear gunshots,” she said in an interview in Spanish. “People shoot in their backyards, after they drink alcohol, men take out guns at house parties and shoot the ground.”

 

Just like the founders envisioned it …”shall not be infringed!!!”

[Walser 1109]

9 hours ago, nbmishoid said:

Having thresholds for “ok to murder” is still fairly shitty.  Hope your day improves.  

Yeah, there is no taking it back. I understand the feels and I feel the same sometimes. 

I like 956 and really appreciate a LOT of his posts. 

[Underdog 28623]

16 hours ago, miguelito said:

That dog has to walk himself.

I stole that btw and posted on his timeline. 

[HenryJames 66048]

16 hours ago, miguelito said:

That dog has to walk himself.

He really should’ve gotten a husky.

[Gengs1 2583]

[Sawbonz 27548]

19 hours ago, BevoAbyss said:

Not for the Indigenous peoples in "Texas."

The genocide/ethnic cleansing was already underway by the rifle-toting Euro-Christian colonizers/conquerers as they stole the lands that became Texas. To make way for all those supposedly "peaceful" Christians we keep hearing about, at least according to the preachers, propagandists, and true believers.

Go read Guns germs and steel. Or pretty much any Michener historical novel. Human societal change from the dawn of man to the First World War followed this blueprint: contact between unlike cultures followed by conflict and then displacement of one by the other, eradication of one by the other, or subjugation/assimilation. In most cases it was probably some combination of all of the above. The “winning” culture would be the more technologically advanced culture most every time. While physical strength, tactics, and bravery are important, they pale in comparison to the advantages domesticated pack/ food animals and crops and metallurgy (and eventually gunpowder) confer.

Migration of humans across this continent, whether from Asia across the land bridge and on south or over sea to the Atlantic (and likely Pacific) coast and then inland followed that pattern and was an inevitability.

Had there been easy access to deposits of tin, and Aurochs here instead of bison, the migration may well have gone in the opposite directions. Imagine the Lakota or Comanche or Crow (or any of the Northeastern nations)with 7500 or so years of reliable local food supply,  and metallurgy.  Hell look at what they did with just a few hundred years of access to horses. 

I say this as someone whose ancestors were forced to walk from Alabama to Oklahoma: the “settling” of the Americas can only be described as theft when viewed through a modern revisionist lens. 

Edited April 30, 2023 by Sawbonz

[RomaVicta 29907]

46 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Go read Guns germs and steel. Or pretty much any Michener historical novel. Human societal change from the dawn of man to the First World War followed this blueprint: contact between unlike cultures followed by conflict and then displacement of one by the other, eradication of one by the other, or subjugation/assimilation. In most cases it was probably some combination of all of the above. The “winning” culture would be the more technologically advanced culture most every time. While physical strength, tactics, and bravery are important, they pale in comparison to the advantages domesticated pack/ food animals and crops and metallurgy (and eventually gunpowder) confer.

Migration of humans across this continent, whether from Asia across the land bridge and on south or over sea to the Atlantic (and likely Pacific) coast and then inland followed that pattern and was an inevitability.

Had there been easy access to deposits of tin, and Aurochs here instead of bison, the migration may well have gone in the opposite directions. Imagine the Lakota or Comanche or Crow (or any of the Northeastern nations)with 7500 or so years of reliable local food supply,  and metallurgy.  Hell look at what they did with just a few hundred years of access to horses. 

I say this as someone whose ancestors were forced to walk from Alabama to Oklahoma: the “settling” of the Americas can only be described as theft when viewed through a modern revisionist lens. 

I used to  believe all of that. I was skeptical about claims about the continent being populated by more than 100,000,000 natives prior to European arrival. I also had the vision of widespread Indian tribes living in a totally natural world over which they exercised no real dominion.

1491 by Charles C. Mann completely toppled my vision of this world. He's a science writer who draws on up to date archeology and historical sources.  Our East Coast was heavy populated by natives who grew crops, controlled forest growth (the big forests there grew after they were wiped out), and even managed game. It was a civilization unrecognizable to Europeans. Explorers and traders could not settle in the east because they were not permitted by the people already present. Mann's book spends a lot of time in meso and South America as well.

The newer and needlessly controversial book, An Indigenous Peoples' History of the United States by Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz completes the picture of the destruction and genocide of the people already present on this continent. I don't use the word genocide without consideration. Dunbar-Ortiz draws evidence, much of it US Government legislation, mandates, treaties, and recorded policies, to draw together a lot of things we're already sort of aware of.

The destruction of Indian civilization and mandated killing of as many as possible should be lifted from our usual context of moderns versus primitives (Bernal Diaz, one of Cortez' soldiers) marvelled at the magnificent structures and order of the native cities which, he wrote, surpassed anything in Europe. 

Had England or later the US had a war with another country, arrived a treaty, and then commenced further wars to completely destroy that other country, it would rightfully be remembered as a ghastly, enormous crime. Had the Allies killed every man woman and child in Germany in the second war against them and then divided up the depopulated land, Allied victory would be viewed with more horror than the Holocaust.

Such it was here. I was about to apologize for writing this tome in mass shootings, but this actually goes to the root of our sick mythology, self-deception, and violence. Look at so many movies and cheap novels insisting that the good man with a gun was killing bad men (savages) with a bow or gun. 

A massive number of Americans have purchased ridiculous amounts of firepower based on that lie. I don't see a way to reverse that deeply-rooted sickness in our culture such as it is.

 

[4th&Five 41533]

 

[Scheiss Meister 8407]

2 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

 

Just another day in NRA/Republican paradise.

[Guest]

Pretty obvious it's not the guns. There are more than ever and things are going swimmingly.

Also, they still haven't found the guy that murdered his neighbors in Cleveland because *checks notes* they asked him not to shoot his gun.

[Red Five 40857]

Still not enough guns everywhere. Once we're all walking around with three or four at a time, everything will be fine. 

[nbmishoid 949]

1 hour ago, 4th&Five said:

 

Face timing with my son in Houston yesterday.   A gunshot came through their back door and lodged in the teen aged son’s bedroom wall, with him in bed, about midnight.  They are extremely freaked out. Hard to be productive in their jobs while constantly worrying about this shit.

[Sawbonz 27548]

2 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

I used to  believe all of that. I was skeptical about claims about the continent being populated by more than 100,000,000 natives prior to European arrival. I also had the vision of widespread Indian tribes living in a totally natural world over which they exercised no real dominion.

1491 by Charles C. Mann completely toppled my vision of this world. He's a science writer who draws on up to date archeology and historical sources.  Our East Coast was heavy populated by natives who grew crops, controlled forest growth (the big forests there grew after they were wiped out), and even managed game. It was a civilization unrecognizable to Europeans. Explorers and traders could not settle in the east because they were not permitted by the people already present. Mann's book spends a lot of time in meso and South America as well.

The newer and needlessly controversial book, An Indigenous Peoples' History of the United States by Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz completes the picture of the destruction and genocide of the people already present on this continent. I don't use the word genocide without consideration. Dunbar-Ortiz draws evidence, much of it US Government legislation, mandates, treaties, and recorded policies, to draw together a lot of things we're already sort of aware of.

The destruction of Indian civilization and mandated killing of as many as possible should be lifted from our usual context of moderns versus primitives (Bernal Diaz, one of Cortez' soldiers) marvelled at the magnificent structures and order of the native cities which, he wrote, surpassed anything in Europe. 

Had England or later the US had a war with another country, arrived a treaty, and then commenced further wars to completely destroy that other country, it would rightfully be remembered as a ghastly, enormous crime. Had the Allies killed every man woman and child in Germany in the second war against them and then divided up the depopulated land, Allied victory would be viewed with more horror than the Holocaust.

Such it was here. I was about to apologize for writing this tome in mass shootings, but this actually goes to the root of our sick mythology, self-deception, and violence. Look at so many movies and cheap novels insisting that the good man with a gun was killing bad men (savages) with a bow or gun. 

A massive number of Americans have purchased ridiculous amounts of firepower based on that lie. I don't see a way to reverse that deeply-rooted sickness in our culture such as it is.

 

You should still believe it. The term genocide was coined in the 1940s. Look at how the ancient Greeks, Persians and Romans waged war. Look at the pagan tribes vs each other and vs the Romans. Look at the Huns and Mongols. It has always been displacement, eradication, or assimilation/subjugation 

Game management is not domestication for food. Also, North American natives had no beasts of burden. South Americans had llamas and alpacas. The offload of physical labor is immeasurable. Not to mention the changes to the immune system of the societies that are conferred by domestication. They had precious metals but no workable metal for tools/weapons. If you are arguing they did not wage war over land and resources that is patently false. Any treaties they had were for the same reason treaties occur anywhere: the cost to wage war gets too high. This is usually because the rival groups are evenly matched in terms of number, resources and technology. Any society that had developed bronze would have dominated all around it. Look at the civilizations in South America and Mexico. Look at the Plains Indians.  Do you know what the names Sioux, Apache, and Comanche have in common?  Do you know what happened to the losers of their battles? I don’t know much about the Iroquois or Mohicans, but I know they could and would wage war. If they had known what was on the other side of the Atlantic they would have slaughtered every white man getting off a ship
 

I do agree that our gun culture is a product of our origins. Criminals, religious fanatics, failed rebels fleeing the monarchies they could not topple, and slavers make for a violent melting pot. But they won because of technology, not because they were more ruthless than their enemies. 

[nbmishoid 949]

Great series of posts, IMHO.  Our melting pot had some damn nasty ingredients.  Our record, judged fairly, is horrific.  But we, however we group the we, are not unique in this regard, in a long history view.   A near universal propensity at the group level.  Culturally evolved. But that doesn’t excuse this propensity, doesn’t excuse it being acted out in todays morality.   As for technology, it allows one side to be more ruthless.   It ups the scale of ruthlessness.   Think the gadget from Los Alamos.  Still, humans make the call.

We today have the benefit of history to guide us through our worst inclinations.  That we, apparently, are too few. 

[RomaVicta 29907]

1 hour ago, Sawbonz said:

You should still believe it. The term genocide was coined in the 1940s. Look at how the ancient Greeks, Persians and Romans waged war. Look at the pagan tribes vs each other and vs the Romans. Look at the Huns and Mongols. It has always been displacement, eradication, or assimilation/subjugation 

Game management is not domestication for food. Also, North American natives had no beasts of burden. South Americans had llamas and alpacas. The offload of physical labor is immeasurable. Not to mention the changes to the immune system of the societies that are conferred by domestication. They had precious metals but no workable metal for tools/weapons. If you are arguing they did not wage war over land and resources that is patently false. Any treaties they had were for the same reason treaties occur anywhere: the cost to wage war gets too high. This is usually because the rival groups are evenly matched in terms of number, resources and technology. Any society that had developed bronze would have dominated all around it. Look at the civilizations in South America and Mexico. Look at the Plains Indians.  Do you know what the names Sioux, Apache, and Comanche have in common?  Do you know what happened to the losers of their battles? I don’t know much about the Iroquois or Mohicans, but I know they could and would wage war. If they had known what was on the other side of the Atlantic they would have slaughtered every white man getting off a ship
 

I do agree that our gun culture is a product of our origins. Criminals, religious fanatics, failed rebels fleeing the monarchies they could not topple, and slavers make for a violent melting pot. But they won because of technology, not because they were more ruthless than their enemies. 

I couldn't disagree more, but we've each had our say.

[BevoAbyss 2058]

I've read 1491 and Guns, Germs, and Steel. Indeed, the historical patterns in 1491 and Guns, Germs, and Steel do reveal humanity's greed and barbarism toward fellow humans.

But, that does not change or excuse the facts of what happened in Texas, especially since the conquering Christians claim to be about peace and love. The Euro-Christians running the state in the mid-1800s approved and unleashed an ethnic cleansing (or genocide) program upon the Indigenous Peoples occupying the territories that became "Texas." The territories were colonized and conquered via mass killings, as happened in the rest of America. Those are facts. (Roma's post above is spot on.)

To excuse the Christian-led atrocities in Texas is nothing less than the usual "but what about ______" hypocrisy and apologia. Especially since the Christians (and all religions) loudly claim the mantle of peace in the wake of their barbarism. 

I grew up in Texas and often heard Christians/Evangelicals/Fundamentalists proudly boast that Texas and America were "God's Country." Of course, that can only mean their all-knowing, all-loving God approved of a genocide against tens of millions of other humans across America. So much for the "peace" and "love" of their fellow humans. So much for a loving God. Yet, this staggering hypocrisy damn near gets a free pass across Texas and America and in Surly. 

Christianity's historical record is clear: colonize, conquer, convert (those left alive). Peace only comes after the blood bath. True in America, true in Texas. 

Edited April 30, 2023 by BevoAbyss
clarity.

[Nivek 16928]

18 hours ago, Satchel said:

So, when are supposed to pursue life, liberty and happiness?

What if your happiness is shooting other people, making noise with your freedom boom stick?

3 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

You should still believe it. The term genocide was coined in the 1940s. Look at how the ancient Greeks, Persians and Romans waged war.

Depend on what time you look at the Ancient Greeks warfare.  At one point the hoplite battles had few casualties, they didn't really run down and slaughter their opponents.   Later on, it became more deadly,  slaughter or slavery was the norm for the conquered within the cities or repopulation.  

[Sawbonz 27548]

4 minutes ago, BevoAbyss said:

I've read 1491 and Guns, Germs, and Steel. Indeed, the historical patterns in 1491 and Guns, Germs, and Steel do reveal humanity's greed and barbarism toward fellow humans.

But, that does not change or excuse the facts of what happened in Texas, especially since the conquering Christians claim to be about peace and love. The Euro-Christians running the state in the mid-1800s approved and unleashed an ethnic cleansing (or genocide) program upon the Indigenous Peoples occupying the territories that became "Texas." The territories were colonized and conquered via mass killings, as happened in the rest of America. Those are facts. (Roma's post above is spot on.)

To excuse the Christian-led atrocities in Texas is nothing less than the usual "but what about ______" hypocrisy and apologia. Especially since the Christians (and all religions) loudly claim the mantle of peace in the wake of their barbarism. 

I grew up in Texas and often heard Christians/Evangelicals/Fundamentalists proudly boast that Texas and America were "God's Country." Of course, that can only mean their all-knowing, all-loving God approved of a genocide against tens of millions of other humans across America. So much for the "peace" and "love" of their fellow humans. So much for a loving God. Yet, this staggering hypocrisy damn near gets a free pass across Texas and America and in Surly. 

Christianity's historical record is clear: colonize, conquer, convert (those left alive). Peace only comes after the blood bath. True in America, true in Texas. 

You seem to think if the Maccabean rebellion had been successful, or if Constantine  hadn’t had his dream, Western Europe and the Levant would have had no conflict, and that the later leaders of Western Europe would never have set out to conquer foreign lands. I don’t see how anyone who knows anything about human nature, anthropology, or recorded history can come to that conclusion. Explaining behavior does not excuse it.  

[jimmyjazz 45916]

How do hypotheticals in Europe and Asia have anything to do with what happened here in North America?

[BevoAbyss 2058]

11 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Explaining behavior does not excuse it.

Yet, that's exactly what you are doing. Gaslighting, apologia. The doublethink is staggering. 

And even inventing my thoughts on Constantine's dream! Lulz.

Adios, dude. 

 

[TexEx15 17515]

What a piece of shit.

[Sawbonz 27548]

7 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

How do hypotheticals in Europe and Asia have anything to do with what happened here in North America?

If you really think there would not be western Europeans in North America but for Christianity, I’m not sure what to say to that. You’re welcome to your opinion.

 

4 minutes ago, BevoAbyss said:

Yet, that's exactly what you are doing. Gaslighting, apologia. The doublethink is staggering. 

And even inventing my thoughts on Constantine's dream! Lulz.

Adios, dude. 

 

Pointing out how warfare has gone throughout history, including examples from indigenous, North American populations, is not gaslighting. I get it. You think Christianity is the worst thing that ever happened to this planet. Feel free not to respond to any of my posts. I will continue to point out problems with your reasoning when I see them.

[Sawbonz 27548]

36 minutes ago, Nivek said:

What if your happiness is shooting other people, making noise with your freedom boom stick?

Depend on what time you look at the Ancient Greeks warfare.  At one point the hoplite battles had few casualties, they didn't really run down and slaughter their opponents.   Later on, it became more deadly,  slaughter or slavery was the norm for the conquered within the cities or repopulation.  

I think technological advances and the emergence of professional fighters and standing armies led to that

[MissingInAction 25065]

Went to Eeyores yesterday where I always stayed near a fat person for cover just in case. I could see that event being a prime target for some incel lunatic.

[Gil Bang 25951]

17 minutes ago, TexEx15 said:

What a piece of shit.

Fuck that fucking cunt and fuck any of you that voted for him.

[henrygandorf 29190]

On 4/29/2023 at 10:48 AM, 956 Worldwide said:

Of course I don’t think you should be able to gun people down in the street over scams, ffs.  That’s a big part of the reason I want to get rid of most legal carry and to seriously vet people who buy guns.  Introducing guns causes shit like this. I also want a society where getting targeted by criminals is exceedingly rare and we have little tolerance for people who victimize others. 
 

I’m still going to save my real outrage for dead neighbors who just want to sleep, and school kids, and teenagers ringing a doorbell looking for help, or people who turn down the wrong driveway. 

dig up, stupid.

[Fastbreak 3985]

I've read 1491 and Guns, Germs, and Steel. Indeed, the historical patterns in 1491 and Guns, Germs, and Steel do reveal humanity's greed and barbarism toward fellow humans.
But, that does not change or excuse the facts of what happened in Texas, especially since the conquering Christians claim to be about peace and love. The Euro-Christians running the state in the mid-1800s approved and unleashed an ethnic cleansing (or genocide) program upon the Indigenous Peoples occupying the territories that became "Texas." The territories were colonized and conquered via mass killings, as happened in the rest of America. Those are facts. (Roma's post above is spot on.)
To excuse the Christian-led atrocities in Texas is nothing less than the usual "but what about ______" hypocrisy and apologia. Especially since the Christians (and all religions) loudly claim the mantle of peace in the wake of their barbarism. 
I grew up in Texas and often heard Christians/Evangelicals/Fundamentalists proudly boast that Texas and America were "God's Country." Of course, that can only mean their all-knowing, all-loving God approved of a genocide against tens of millions of other humans across America. So much for the "peace" and "love" of their fellow humans. So much for a loving God. Yet, this staggering hypocrisy damn near gets a free pass across Texas and America and in Surly. 
Christianity's historical record is clear: colonize, conquer, convert (those left alive). Peace only comes after the blood bath. True in America, true in Texas. 

One of the very first fairy tales of the Bible is the “loving” God killing almost every person on the planet (old, newborn, still in the womb, crippled, etc) in a huge flood. He loved humanity so much he said “fuck all of it…”.

So yeah, humans that follow that god are generally assholes.

[Hermanator 7042]

8 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

You think Christianity is the worst thing that ever happened to the planet. 

[GW Hayduke 1953]

14 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

I couldn't disagree more, but we've each had our say.

This was an interesting conversation to read. Morality and science. The two of you are not having a disagreement on the facts of history. It seems the disagreement is about the application of moral judgement and whether it is good/bad for civilizations to conquer (assimilate, displace, eradicate) other civilizations.  I understand you feel the history of North America is immoral. Sawbonz and Jared Diamond (in Guns, Germs and Steel) from what I recall are describing the phenomenon and are not applying moral judgement.

The separation of morality from science is normal and required. People can understand a situation without applying moral judgement, or they can choose to both try to understand a situation and judge at the same time. The downfall of applying morality is that it clouds our understanding of science. Plus moral systems change over time. The downfall of only applying science is that it can be used to hide from today's moral system and promote immoral actions today (Israel/Palestine, Ukraine/Russia, current displacement of indigenous populations in SA, lack of health care and education opportunities in today's indigenous populations in NA). 

[WhatTheBuck 28779]

15 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

If you really think there would not be western Europeans in North America but for Christianity, I’m not sure what to say to that. You’re welcome to your opinion.

I’m pretty sure boating technology predates Christianity. 

[Pancho 44771]

 

[WhatTheBuck 28779]

13 hours ago, Fastbreak said:

One of the very first fairy tales of the Bible is the “loving” God killing almost every person on the planet (old, newborn, still in the womb, crippled, etc) in a huge flood. He loved humanity so much he said “fuck all of it…”.

Think of all the aborted fetuses. 

[atomheartbevo 89659]

18 minutes ago, Pancho said:

 

That is a dude with a small dick.

[RPM 26319]

TEXARKANA, Texas (KTAL/KMSS) – A baseball player with Texas A&M University-Texarkana was struck by a stray bullet during a game Saturday evening.

Officers responded to the shooting at the George Dobson Field at Spring Lake Park around 5:30 p.m. Officials say the 18-year-old was standing in the bullpen when a stray bullet struck him.

The Texarkana Texas Police Department says the shot came from an altercation in a neighborhood west of the park.

First responders took the baseball player to St. Michael Hospital for treatment. The TTPD says he went into surgery Saturday and is in stable condition.

As a precaution, BSA officials decided to end the Scout-O-Rama happening in another area of the park.

[RomaVicta 29907]

1 hour ago, GW Hayduke said:

This was an interesting conversation to read. Morality and science. The two of you are not having a disagreement on the facts of history. It seems the disagreement is about the application of moral judgement and whether it is good/bad for civilizations to conquer (assimilate, displace, eradicate) other civilizations.  I understand you feel the history of North America is immoral. Sawbonz and Jared Diamond (in Guns, Germs and Steel) from what I recall are describing the phenomenon and are not applying moral judgement.

The separation of morality from science is normal and required. People can understand a situation without applying moral judgement, or they can choose to both try to understand a situation and judge at the same time. The downfall of applying morality is that it clouds our understanding of science. Plus moral systems change over time. The downfall of only applying science is that it can be used to hide from today's moral system and promote immoral actions today (Israel/Palestine, Ukraine/Russia, current displacement of indigenous populations in SA, lack of health care and education opportunities in today's indigenous populations in NA). 

Read the materials that I suggested. One is composed by a scientist and the other by a meticulous historian whose book is about 40 percent bibliography. The application of these sciences points to the fact that we lie to ourselves about our history and perversely use the lies to justify further killing.

I'm not talking about the world. I'm talking about the United States. 

On an individual level, you get Americans believing in the power of the gun to solve problems. Cue Mark Twain. If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. The lunatic who slaughtered the family in Cleveland, Texas was out shooting his rifle at 11pm. A neighbor asks him to stop.

That he's out in his yard firing his rifle when people are trying to sleep nearby sounds uniquely American to me. His annoying neighbor interrupts his excercise of his God-given right, an attitude that seems uniquely American to me. He slaughters the neighbor's family, an action all too common in America and rare elsewhere.