OT: The Arizona Coyotes Lounge XVII - Office Space
- Thread starter TheLegend
- Start date
- Status
TheLegend
Megathread Gadfly
I passed up going to Hawaii a long time ago. My sisters were ready to pay my way over but I had just met my future wife at the time and wanted to spend the time with her.
Still self-kicking my ass over that. (the trip.... not the wife
)
Still self-kicking my ass over that. (the trip.... not the wife
)
MIGs Dog
Registered User
- Jan 3, 2012
- 14,588
- 12,534
I passed up going to Hawaii a long time ago. My sisters were ready to pay my way over but I had just met my future wife at the time and wanted to spend the time with her.
Still self-kicking my ass over that. (the trip.... not the wife
rt
The Kinder, Gentler Version
Hot as hell. I hate this shit.
Arizona is perfect when it’s bright sunshine, 50-55 degrees, and dry. Bright, crisp, and dry. Sunglasses and light sweater weather. Beer on a patio in the afternoon weather.
I passed up going to Hawaii a long time ago. My sisters were ready to pay my way over but I had just met my future wife at the time and wanted to spend the time with her.
Still self-kicking my ass over that. (the trip.... not the wife
I got two Hawaiian trips paid for one year
When we stationed in Japan and my parents were in Missouri, but they wanted to have a family reunion. So we met in the middle. Hawaii.
Afterwards my father in law got jealous after hearing about the vacation. He wanted to meet in the middle also
By then we lived in Virginia. He lived in Tasmania, Australia. So we met in the middle. Hawaii.
RemoAZ
Let it burn
Was 81 inside when I got home from work. Had to turn on the a/c. November 21st and I'm still running the a/c. Electric bill is still trending at $90 though so can't complain.
Honestly my blood has thinned.
Below room temperature, 70 degrees and it’s too cold for me also.
I feel like a wimp though. Guys at work are still wearing shorts...
Speaking of the weather, the pond by my house as dried up.
It's a water run off pond, at Power and Guadalupe that goes as the rain goes. I've never seen it dry.
We need rain. Or at least a rain dance...
It's a water run off pond, at Power and Guadalupe that goes as the rain goes. I've never seen it dry.
We need rain. Or at least a rain dance...
I can't find a good rain dance but I found a great haka dance.
Haka dances started as war dances. Tribes showing their power before a fight.
It's a Maori, or New Zealand, tradition.
The dance has morphed into showing love for someone. The group would go to battle for you.
The grander the facial expressions, the more care or love shown.
Haka dances started as war dances. Tribes showing their power before a fight.
It's a Maori, or New Zealand, tradition.
The dance has morphed into showing love for someone. The group would go to battle for you.
The grander the facial expressions, the more care or love shown.
People who work at Chipotle, why do you insist in putting all the hot sauce on the tacos directly in the middle of the taco and not spread out?
Who the f*** wants a giant blob of sauce?
Who the f*** wants a giant blob of sauce?
rt
The Kinder, Gentler Version
There's a bunch of Blackhawks controversy going on right now. Along the lines of the Redskins stuff.
If I recall correctly, we have some Native American posters, here. I'm no solely interested in their take. I'm happy to hear input from anyone. And I certainly understand that a couple of Native dudes on a hockey board don't speak for an entire nation, lol.
I posted this on the main board, and I assume I'll just get killed by a mob of white people for it. But I don't mean it that way. I'm hoping because this is a smaller group, people will be more patient and give more of a benefit of the doubt.
I've read some books (mostly novels) that have something to do with Native American history. It's mostly written by non-Native Americans, though. It's probably not a great source for information. But I'm just being honest (Empire of the Summer Moon, The Moor's Account, The Son, Dances With Wolves, Blood Meridian, A Land Remembered, The Holy Road, etc. - stuff like that. Not accurate). Apart from having a handful of Navajo buddies when I was a teenager/early twenties and a Navajo girlfriend for a couple of years, I don't have any first hand experience. I took a couple of courses in community college about Native American history but that was 15 years ago at this point.
I started thinking about this a bit during Columbus Day (Indigenous People's Day)
The Chicago Blackhawks released the following "land acknowledgment" type of statement:
"The Chicago Blackhawks acknowledge that the team, its foundation, and the spaces we maintain, work and compete within, stand upon the traditional homelands of the Miami, Sauk, Fox, Ho-Chunk, Menominee, and the council of the Three Fires: the Ojibwe, Odawa, and Potawatomi Nations"
Wikipedia tells me the following:
- Chief Blackhawk was the War Chief of the Sauk tribe
- The Sauk tribe was originally from along the St. Lawrence river but were "driven" west by the Iroquois
- They then settled in the Saginaw Valley region in what is now known as Michigan
- The Huron tribe "drove" the Sauk south to Illinois and Wisconsin
- The Sauk tribe (with other tribes) "destroyed" the Illinois tribe (with other tribes)
Wikipedia described Blackhawk's status as War Chief in the following way:
"After an extended period of mourning for his father, Black Hawk resumed leading raiding parties over the next years, usually targeting the traditional enemy, the Osage. Black Hawk did not belong to a clan that provided the Sauk with hereditary civil leaders, or "chiefs". He achieved status through his exploits as a warrior and by leading successful raiding parties."
I've always had questions about this kind of thing. What does it mean for one tribe to "drive" out another tribe from their land? What does it mean for one tribe to "destroy" another tribe? Can someone help me understand that main differences between the Iroquois "driving" out the Sauk, and the Huron "driving" out the Sauk, and the Sauk "destroying" Illinois versus what the French and later the Americans did to the Sauk?
I know it seems like I'm trying to make a political or racial point. I'm not. I'm hoping somebody can help me get my arms around this. It's always confused me. Why is one tribe killing another tribe and "stealing" their land something that needs no acknowledgement but a European tribe of one kind or another killing a native tribe and stealing their land is inherently worse?
Do we have a higher standard for European tribes? That seems wrong. Or is it just the degree? I could see that. But where do we put a start on that? When Europeans got sail boats but not before that? Why should history start there?
Again, I'm assuming I'll be dismissed as being a racist person. But I feel like I'm just a curious person. I'd like someone to help me understand.
I want help understanding where we start the clock, and what counts.
Then I start thinking about Alexander the Great and about Charlemagne and my head really hurts. Then I think about Genghis Khan. Hell, even Hirohito and the Rape of Nanking. And then I think about the Bering Land Bridge and I just give up.
If I recall correctly, we have some Native American posters, here. I'm no solely interested in their take. I'm happy to hear input from anyone. And I certainly understand that a couple of Native dudes on a hockey board don't speak for an entire nation, lol.
I posted this on the main board, and I assume I'll just get killed by a mob of white people for it. But I don't mean it that way. I'm hoping because this is a smaller group, people will be more patient and give more of a benefit of the doubt.
I've read some books (mostly novels) that have something to do with Native American history. It's mostly written by non-Native Americans, though. It's probably not a great source for information. But I'm just being honest (Empire of the Summer Moon, The Moor's Account, The Son, Dances With Wolves, Blood Meridian, A Land Remembered, The Holy Road, etc. - stuff like that. Not accurate). Apart from having a handful of Navajo buddies when I was a teenager/early twenties and a Navajo girlfriend for a couple of years, I don't have any first hand experience. I took a couple of courses in community college about Native American history but that was 15 years ago at this point.
I started thinking about this a bit during Columbus Day (Indigenous People's Day)
The Chicago Blackhawks released the following "land acknowledgment" type of statement:
"The Chicago Blackhawks acknowledge that the team, its foundation, and the spaces we maintain, work and compete within, stand upon the traditional homelands of the Miami, Sauk, Fox, Ho-Chunk, Menominee, and the council of the Three Fires: the Ojibwe, Odawa, and Potawatomi Nations"
Wikipedia tells me the following:
- Chief Blackhawk was the War Chief of the Sauk tribe
- The Sauk tribe was originally from along the St. Lawrence river but were "driven" west by the Iroquois
- They then settled in the Saginaw Valley region in what is now known as Michigan
- The Huron tribe "drove" the Sauk south to Illinois and Wisconsin
- The Sauk tribe (with other tribes) "destroyed" the Illinois tribe (with other tribes)
Wikipedia described Blackhawk's status as War Chief in the following way:
"After an extended period of mourning for his father, Black Hawk resumed leading raiding parties over the next years, usually targeting the traditional enemy, the Osage. Black Hawk did not belong to a clan that provided the Sauk with hereditary civil leaders, or "chiefs". He achieved status through his exploits as a warrior and by leading successful raiding parties."
I've always had questions about this kind of thing. What does it mean for one tribe to "drive" out another tribe from their land? What does it mean for one tribe to "destroy" another tribe? Can someone help me understand that main differences between the Iroquois "driving" out the Sauk, and the Huron "driving" out the Sauk, and the Sauk "destroying" Illinois versus what the French and later the Americans did to the Sauk?
I know it seems like I'm trying to make a political or racial point. I'm not. I'm hoping somebody can help me get my arms around this. It's always confused me. Why is one tribe killing another tribe and "stealing" their land something that needs no acknowledgement but a European tribe of one kind or another killing a native tribe and stealing their land is inherently worse?
Do we have a higher standard for European tribes? That seems wrong. Or is it just the degree? I could see that. But where do we put a start on that? When Europeans got sail boats but not before that? Why should history start there?
Again, I'm assuming I'll be dismissed as being a racist person. But I feel like I'm just a curious person. I'd like someone to help me understand.
I want help understanding where we start the clock, and what counts.
Then I start thinking about Alexander the Great and about Charlemagne and my head really hurts. Then I think about Genghis Khan. Hell, even Hirohito and the Rape of Nanking. And then I think about the Bering Land Bridge and I just give up.
I got caught up in the discussion and actually emailed the tribe (though a poster on the main board thread pointed out fine print I didn't read - and after checking again, may have been blocked due to some BS-blocking plugins I use) directly. I'm not going to delete or edit my posts and a few of them were possibly stupid, but I'll screenshot what someone said in response to my insistence that people just ask said tribe what they think, and linking the "contact" section on their official website:
My personal interpretation of that fine print is that they basically don't give a shit.
rt
The Kinder, Gentler Version
It can’t be that simple. A lot of people feel passionately about this and their feelings have to have some merit. There are a lot of smart people who feel this way. I’m not even suggesting they’re right or wrong. I’m just trying to understand.
MIGs Dog
Registered User
- Jan 3, 2012
- 14,588
- 12,534
White guilt is why it's become a more significant issue today than it was in the past. From a native american perspective, you would think recency would make their opposition stronger. In other words, native american opposition would have been higher when the Chicago hockey team adopted the name in the 1920s, maybe it was, but they didn't have much of a voice back then.
Today, any injustice (if by white males the better), perceived or otherwise, is magnified. Look at Portland, where they had some of the strongest and most enduring protests over the summer, yet the city is 95% caucasian. Why? White guilt.
rt
The Kinder, Gentler Version
This is a bit of a logical fallacy and only follows if you proceed from the perspective that it is incorrect for white people to protest these issues. I'm sure their perspective is not that they turned out to self-flagellate and pour their contrition out onto the streets of Portland, but rather to finally take action, and do what's right, and use their freedom to stand up for their oppressed American brothers and sisters.
I'm not smart enough to have an opinion on this stuff. I'm barely smart enough to try to get things clarified. If it were as simple as you say, I wouldn't be this confused. I'm dumb, but I'm not brain-damaged (well, at least not much).
MIGs Dog
Registered User
- Jan 3, 2012
- 14,588
- 12,534
In many cases they are unqualified to assert an injustice is being committed because they have not experienced the injustice and are relying mostly on the distorted view of the world gained from their liberal education.
I have not heard a logical argument as to why "Fighting Sioux" must be dropped yet "Fighting Irish" is AOK. Is it because the Irish have never been oppressed, discrimated against, or had slurs shouted in their face? Perhaps we need a broader understanding of history.
Last edited:
rt
The Kinder, Gentler Version
I don’t know that there is a good argument for that. It doesn’t make sense to me either.
- Status
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
-
Gold Medal 2024 IIHF WORLD CHAMPION - PICK ONLY ONE TEAMWagers: 7Staked: $36,600.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-