3 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Redskins, Fighting Irish talk is at least sports related.  

But, a little research project for you... find out who the original 'possessors' of the Black Hills actually was.

Trick question.  First the majority of the plains tribes didn’t recognize land ownership.  Second, as the European and American settlements pushed west, so did the tribes and the bigger ones tended to displace the smaller ones. That is all the hint I am going to give him.

10 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Redskins, Fighting Irish talk is at least sports related.  

But, a little research project for you... find out who the original 'possessors' of the Black Hills actually was.

Far as i can tell it was the Arakara, dating back as far as 1500 AD.

And as bigefly already said native americans didnt believe in land posession or ownership at least.

24 minutes ago, Utebird said:

Its dumb because those are native lands and trump hasnt been given permission to be there by tribal leaders.

But america has been breaking treaties with native americans ever since theyve made them.

The treaty the us has made with the sioux over that land dates back to 1868 and has since been broken including for the carving of mt rushmore which is native land.

But hey why ask or listen when the us government can do whatever they want and have with native lands?

To celebrate the independence of ones country on land stolen from natives is a slap in the face to native americans and the treaties that US signed and fail to up hold.

 

You are being a bit myopic.  Yes, the US broke or forced rewrites of treaties with Native Americans.  But it isn’t as though some treaties weren’t honored and it isn’t untrue that both sides broke treaties.  That 1868 treaty was also broken by native Americans that decided they weren’t going to abide by it.

Just now, BigEFly said:

You are being a bit myopic.  Yes, the US broke or forced rewrites of treaties with Native Americans.  But it isn’t as though some treaties weren’t honored and it isn’t untrue that both sides broke treaties.  That 1868 treaty was also broken by native Americans that decided they weren’t going to abide by it.

 

Yes treaties were broken on both side and why did natives break treaties compared to why US broke treaties?

The US didnt make treaties with the native nations out of the goodness of their hearts, they made treaties with them to pacify them and those treaties were made under the threat of force not out of some sense of preservation or compromise for native culture and lands.

Even if those treaties were broken in the past by either side doesnt excuse not upholding current treaties. Those lands that are under tribal control or possession should have say in what goes on on their territories. The current tribal leaders of the land where trump wants to have his fire work show has said he is not welcome on their land and doesnt have permission to have a fire work show or any show. 

That should be the end of it but as always the US government doesnt honor the tribal nations and does what ever they want.

Been that way for a long time but it is what it is.

 

 

 

i gots to go to bed ive enjoyed learning about some american history i didnt know, about irish americans, scandinavians, and native americans as well. Thanks for letting me learn in a way that might not always be confortable hope you guys have a good night and a safe 4th

1 hour ago, Green Dog said:

Makes me wonder if Sidney Jones is working as hard.

He’s skipping leg day, that’s for sure 

4 hours ago, TEW said:

I wouldn’t call what I’ve seen over the last few decades progress...

Not referring to native Americans by the term "redskin?”  I would. 

7 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

He’s skipping leg day, that’s for sure 

And arm and chest day

7 hours ago, Diehardfan said:

Well, when there is a fire you all will have more stuff to **** about. If there isn't a fire you'll **** about the next thing.

You b×××h about plenty of stuff.  You're just fed up with theirs and think yours is righteous.  Self awareness is better than pointing fingers.

7 hours ago, LeanMeanGM said:

He’s skipping leg day, that’s for sure 

I think if Sidney remains healthy he is the starter.  I would have liked to seen videos like this of Jones/Douglas after their rookie seasons, sophomore seasons.  

5 non- rookies who could significantly improve the team if they improve:

Jones, Mailata, JJ, Barnett, Sweat

9 hours ago, Green Dog said:

Makes me wonder if Sidney Jones is working as hard.

Pretty sure there was a report that Jones was working with someone as well during the off season. 

8 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

Jones is a big one.  I think we know what Barnett is.  Just not going to be a very productive DE in the NFL.  JJ was just a bad pick. Howie’s getting good at that.   Sweat and Mailata have upside and you’re right, whenever the next season is played, is the time to see it with those two.   

Out of the younger DE's, will be interesting to see if any of the guys (other than Sweat) take a leap forward this year....Miller, Avery, Ostman & Hall....I think there's talent and potential among that group.

 

1 hour ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

Jones is a big one.  I think we know what Barnett is.  Just not going to be a very productive DE in the NFL.  JJ was just a bad pick. Howie’s getting good at that.   Sweat and Mailata have upside and you’re right, whenever the next season is played, is the time to see it with those two.   

Jones, if improves and healthy, should claim the other starting CB spot.  That would eliminate a lot of uncertainty at the CB group.

Hard to count on JJaw, as he has shown very little.  Also the WR focus is moving towards speed and away from size.  That would discount his value.  Looks like a wasted pick at this point.

Mailata has the physical side going for him.  If he can nail down the scheme and techniques, he can be the back-up LT the coming season.  If he can't progress, this would be the end of his experiment.

 

 

9 hours ago, Utebird said:

 

Yes treaties were broken on both side and why did natives break treaties compared to why US broke treaties?

The US didnt make treaties with the native nations out of the goodness of their hearts, they made treaties with them to pacify them and those treaties were made under the threat of force not out of some sense of preservation or compromise for native culture and lands.

Even if those treaties were broken in the past by either side doesnt excuse not upholding current treaties. Those lands that are under tribal control or possession should have say in what goes on on their territories. The current tribal leaders of the land where trump wants to have his fire work show has said he is not welcome on their land and doesnt have permission to have a fire work show or any show. 

That should be the end of it but as always the US government doesnt honor the tribal nations and does what ever they want.

Been that way for a long time but it is what it is.

 

 

 

That is revisionist history.  You seem to oppose generalizations and bias, yet you continue to spout them when they support your viewpoints.  

Frankly, the most common cause of breaking treaties from the Native American side was that bands of the tribe would just decide it wasn’t for them.  Now that was also the case of some of our westernmost settlers. They went into lands that weren’t open to them. Bradley County, TN, Black Hills and even in our own backyard here in PA, where before and after the French and Indian Wars (yes, that is plural), the English agreed they wouldn’t cross the mountains.  They actually burned out settlers in what are now Huntington and Blair counties.

You make it sound so simple.  You somehow overlook the history of how both the French and the British allied with Native American tribes during those expansions of European wars to the Americas. MA is thought to have lost about 8% of male adults during King George’s War some thirty years before the Revolution. The last war, the only French and Indian War most kids study, was twelve years before the Revolution.   The communal armory (where the gunpowder was stored) in Concord that the British were coming to seize?  Know why the colonists had it and were so adamant about keeping it?  It wasn’t to rebel against the British.  Why do you think we have a Second Amendment.  It is not so everyone can have an assault rifle, it was so the colonists could band together and protect themselves against attacks that were so prevalent the century and a half they had been here.  Know why western migration and manifest destiny are so emblazoned in our souls.  It was resistance to being told that we could not settle there.  

Clearly, we made mistakes.  We tried to assimilate the tribes.  Makes sense if you look at it from the perspective of religions, cultures and origins of colonists.  There were so many Germans in PA and the colonies, the language of the Country was almost German. Irish, Dutch, English, Scots, Welch, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Scandinavians, Swiss, Africans, all different cultures and languages coming here.  Every sort of religion and even some that weren’t.  All melting together. Is it any surprise that they tried to assimilate the tribes?  There was some tribes that took to such more than others.  

Yes, the US broke treaties and used might to force its way, mostly in territories, not states.  The behavior from about 1865 to 1890 in the west was pretty bad.  I expect your roots in Utah and now Kansas exposed you to some of the worst parts of our history.  The Mormons, like other religions, intent on "saving” and converting Native Americans.  The battle over land and water with the Utes  General Howard and the Nez Perce War, Wounded Knee.  Bad stuff.  But some good.  Teaching farming and ranching to replace the depleted buffalo herds.  Most everyday settlers in proximity to reservations coexisted with their Native American neighbors much like they did with other ethnic groups that settled nearby. Coexistence meant helping each other too.  

We aren’t going back. The Doyles aren’t going back to Denmark from Ireland.  Nor are the Saxons of the Anglo-Saxons going back to Saxony.  The tribes of Northern Europe aren’t going back to what they were.  The Lakota aren’t going back to Minnesota. 

Broaden your understanding of history.  BTW, two areas I have read extensively about are western expansion and Native American history. You might say it was a scholastic pursuit of mine.  One thing I can assure you about, history is not an absolute. 
 

3 hours ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

Or how about agree to disagree and move on from any political discussion.  We have good friends from MD.  So radically on the other side of the spectrum from us, it’s not even funny.  But when we get together we make a point to stay away from politics.   Movies, food, tv, sports, etc.... and we have a blast.   
 

I just think some posters in here relish in it and can’t wait to spark more discord.   You know who you are.  
 

 

 

As for me.  Sister and BIL in town.   Swimming and bbq’ing all day.  Got some illegal fireworks and have cleared it with everyone on the cul de sac (neighborhood actually) that we’re blowing crap up tonight.  So Happy 4th Guys!!!!

 

 

Have hoses ready. And buckets of water.  Be safe and no JPP.

11 hours ago, Utebird said:

 

Yes treaties were broken on both side and why did natives break treaties compared to why US broke treaties?

The US didnt make treaties with the native nations out of the goodness of their hearts, they made treaties with them to pacify them and those treaties were made under the threat of force not out of some sense of preservation or compromise for native culture and lands.

Even if those treaties were broken in the past by either side doesnt excuse not upholding current treaties. Those lands that are under tribal control or possession should have say in what goes on on their territories. The current tribal leaders of the land where trump wants to have his fire work show has said he is not welcome on their land and doesnt have permission to have a fire work show or any show. 

That should be the end of it but as always the US government doesnt honor the tribal nations and does what ever they want.

Been that way for a long time but it is what it is.

 

 

 

Dude, we took land from people who took land from other people. The end. Do I feel for their ancestors? Sure. Guess who broke peace treaties with each other back in the day? Yep. Native Americans. Last night he had a fireworks. Oh well. Move on. 

13 hours ago, 315Eagles said:

Well I think the Philadelphia Eagles are safe.

Is there anything possible that people could find offensive with the name Eagles?

the people that decided it should be our national bird were slave owners... always a ridiculous connection that you can drag up. I am all for renaming things with visible racial connections or a history of demeaning use. But when we start trying to do things like rename the capital of our country, I am out.

 

4 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

 

Ugh, it’s going to be a long summer 

 

5 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Ugh, it’s going to be a long summer 

Such a ridiculous decision. Tweeting about Jalen Reagor torching DBs doesn’t affect the players’ health and well being and it doesn’t do anything to affect competitive balance. 

All it does is give fans less information and entertainment during a pandemic. Bad. Bad. Bad. 

29 minutes ago, QBhunter58 said:

the people that decided it should be our national bird were slave owners... always a ridiculous connection that you can drag up. I am all for renaming things with visible racial connections or a history of demeaning use. But when we start trying to do things like rename the capital of our country, I am out.

Guess we are lucky that Franklin didn’t get his way and the national bird isn’t the turkey.  Fly turkeys fly doesn’t have the same ring to it.

7 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

Such a ridiculous decision. Tweeting about Jalen Reagor torching DBs doesn’t affect the players’ health and well being and it doesn’t do anything to affect competitive balance. 

All it does is give fans less information and entertainment during a pandemic. Bad. Bad. Bad. 

The all knowing @Don Corleone knew the darkest timeline was coming, so he peaced out early 

1 minute ago, BigEFly said:

Guess we are lucky that Franklin didn’t get his way and the national bird isn’t the turkey.  Fly turkeys fly doesn’t have the same ring to it.

Agreed😄, although i have always thought he ha a stronger argument 

27 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

 

Pretty restricted, especially who is playing what.  Hopefully Spads and his crew don’t count as media and the national broadcast guys aren’t allowed to travel to teams during camp.  Will miss the tweet updates and videos. 

1 hour ago, BigEFly said:

That is revisionist history.  You seem to oppose generalizations and bias, yet you continue to spout them when they support your viewpoints.  

Frankly, the most common cause of breaking treaties from the Native American side was that bands of the tribe would just decide it wasn’t for them.  Now that was also the case of some of our westernmost settlers. They went into lands that weren’t open to them. Bradley County, TN, Black Hills and even in our own backyard here in PA, where before and after the French and Indian Wars (yes, that is plural), the English agreed they wouldn’t cross the mountains.  They actually burned out settlers in what are now Huntington and Blair counties.

You make it sound so simple.  You somehow overlook the history of how both the French and the British allied with Native American tribes during those expansions of European wars to the Americas. MA is thought to have lost about 8% of male adults during King George’s War some thirty years before the Revolution. The last war, the only French and Indian War most kids study, was twelve years before the Revolution.   The communal armory (where the gunpowder was stored) in Concord that the British were coming to seize?  Know why the colonists had it and were so adamant about keeping it?  It wasn’t to rebel against the British.  Why do you think we have a Second Amendment.  It is not so everyone can have an assault rifle, it was so the colonists could band together and protect themselves against attacks that were so prevalent the century and a half they had been here.  Know why western migration and manifest destiny are so emblazoned in our souls.  It was resistance to being told that we could not settle there.  

Clearly, we made mistakes.  We tried to assimilate the tribes.  Makes sense if you look at it from the perspective of religions, cultures and origins of colonists.  There were so many Germans in PA and the colonies, the language of the Country was almost German. Irish, Dutch, English, Scots, Welch, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Scandinavians, Swiss, Africans, all different cultures and languages coming here.  Every sort of religion and even some that weren’t.  All melting together. Is it any surprise that they tried to assimilate the tribes?  There was some tribes that took to such more than others.  

Yes, the US broke treaties and used might to force its way, mostly in territories, not states.  The behavior from about 1865 to 1890 in the west was pretty bad.  I expect your roots in Utah and now Kansas exposed you to some of the worst parts of our history.  The Mormons, like other religions, intent on "saving” and converting Native Americans.  The battle over land and water with the Utes  General Howard and the Nez Perce War, Wounded Knee.  Bad stuff.  But some good.  Teaching farming and ranching to replace the depleted buffalo herds.  Most everyday settlers in proximity to reservations coexisted with their Native American neighbors much like they did with other ethnic groups that settled nearby. Coexistence meant helping each other too.  

We aren’t going back. The Doyles aren’t going back to Denmark from Ireland.  Nor are the Saxons of the Anglo-Saxons going back to Saxony.  The tribes of Northern Europe aren’t going back to what they were.  The Lakota aren’t going back to Minnesota. 

Broaden your understanding of history.  BTW, two areas I have read extensively about are western expansion and Native American history. You might say it was a scholastic pursuit of mine.  One thing I can assure you about, history is not an absolute. 
 

I enjoy your knowledge of history, my uncle was actually a dean of history at a college, hes written a bunch of books mostly about utah history and early mormon history and early socialism history of utah and america. I havent read most of his stuff for whatever reason but you are correct that some of our history with the ute tribes is ugly. Our history as a nation with the native americans is ugly as is the history of most imperial nations with native people. I realize we cant go back but id hope that we can be better more respectful of not just native culture but all cultures and that we can be respectful of native tribes, territories and people. Too many times since ive been an adult have i seen the US government take what they want from native lands and people without any regard for how the rightful keepers of those territories feel. Id hope we can do better as a country but doesnt seem weve made much progress in that arena. Again i appreciate your knowledge of history, its not a strong suit of mine nor a hobby so thanks for sharing your knowledge!👍