Clint Eastwood or John Wayne

[SaltwaterServr]

Chuck Norris stays off of Clint's lawn.

John Wayne dared his grass to grow.

Pick one.

 

[Staggerlee]

Well they did have no chance of repelling them.

And the revisionist BS I have seen in some school textbooks over the last few years are more than sufficient.

There was one for jr high American History. It spent 1 page on the revolution and 4 pages on Civil Rights movement of the 60's.

And then there is the BS from some that have tried to claim that the Atomic Bombs were unnecessary to force Japan to surrender.

That is what I am talking about

First of all it is laughable that you look toward a jr. high textbook as a bastion of truth that has somehow been perverted by "revisionist history". My high school textbook (from the 80s) has 1 small paragraph on slavery in the north saying that it was "a kinder, gentler form of slavery than in the south". As you should know, that is one giant pile of BS. You should read the book Lies Mt Teacher Told Me by James Lowen it will explain even more stuff like that that you can easily find in any high school textbook.

Concerning the distribution of topics in the textbook its sounds as though you are upset over the trend in historiography to write about social history rather than political or military history, and social history is definitely NOT revisionist history.

And concerning your absurd assertion that the Native Americans couldn't repel the Europeans and it was inevitable, that is also laughable. The Natives outnumbered the French in New France the entire time they had a presence in colonial America and their fear of the Natives is present in much of their writing and in their actions to maintain neutrality, they wanted to get in to the trade networks and as they didn't have the numbers to force their way in they had to play nice (though they did take some military action against them in the late 1600's they quickly resolved it in the great peace of montreal in 1701).

The Natives also outnumbered the Dutch during their entire presence in the colonial America. They certainly outnumbered the Spanish who were trying to make their way up through New Mexico and Florida. In Florida the Spanish needed the Natives so badly that they were actually given weapons and assigned to the militia. In New Mexico the Natives military might was demonstrated by the pueblo revolt in 1680 when they had finally had enough of the Spanish attempts to become a hegemon. They destroyed the Spanish settlements and pushed the Spanish back into Mexico until early in the 18th century. And even then the only way the Spanish could get back in was to sweet talk their way in, NOT through military might.

The English were the only people who were so vastly outnumbered by the Natives, yet they too still outnumbered. Several Native wars came close to wiping out English presence in large chunks of the nation such as the Pequot war, King Phillips war, etc. The ONLY way the English were able to survive these was by conning one of the tribes in the Native alliances into helping them. Of course later they would just screw them over as they had the Natives before them so little good it did. If you doubt the respect and fear that the English had for the Native American than just look at the proclamation line of 1763 for proof. After the French and Indian war England passed the line protecting land west of the Appalachians from settlement for the Natives because the last thing they wanted was another Native attack. This of course became on on they many things that led to the revolutionary war as colonists were angry that the Crown was keeping them from stealing Native land.

 

[Barbarino]

Eastwood and Wayne isn't close.

 

[arglebargle]

Napoleon was right about that; which refutes your opinion.

No, it merely means that your so called 'Revisionist Histories' are the ones you don't like.

I am pretty sure that many people over the years have situations where they know specifics about events, events where the official story does not mesh up with their experiance.

 

[RS12]

Clint in a close one. When it comes to the Duke, I'll always stop and watch "The Green Berets" if it is on.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

I have been thumbing through the TV channels and ran across Pale Rider and Unforgiven . It brought to mind a quesion that all men should have an opinion on . Are you a Clint Eastwood man or a John Wayne man ? I have to go with Clint myself . He has made so many great movies . The Outlaw Josey Wales is a classic . Give me your opinion .

Clint because he could actually do some non tough guy roles, John Wayne couldn't. His roles were all pretty much the same.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

John Wayne. The rest are pretenders and even Clint would admit that. It is over 30 years since he died and he still is voted in the top 3 favorite actors. The Duke is royalty.

except he couldn't act

 

[bbgun]

except he couldn't act

Nah. Jason Statham can't act.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Revisionist history = saying the US Civil War wasn't ultimately caused by the institution of slavery.

 

[bbgun]

Revisionist history = saying the US Civil War wasn't ultimately caused by the institution of slavery.

Of course it was about slavery, but Lincoln was no abolitionist at heart. Had the South agreed not to export slavery to the new territories, Southern slavery would have continued on its merry way all through the Lincoln presidency. He only acted because the South left the Union.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

There really is some much that is not understood about that time period.

Slavery was not the driving issue in that the North went to War to stop it. Had that been the driving issue, Lincoln and the North would have freed the slaves but they didn't. That pretty much says it all to me.

 

[Staggerlee]

Of course it was about slavery, but Lincoln was no abolitionist at heart. Had the South agreed not to export slavery to the new territories, Southern slavery would have continued on its merry way all through the Lincoln presidency. He only acted because the South left the Union.

There really is some much that is not understood about that time period.

Slavery was not the driving issue in that the North went to War to stop it. Had that been the driving issue, Lincoln and the North would have freed the slaves but they didn't. That pretty much says it all to me.

I completely agree.

 

[arglebargle]

There really is some much that is not understood about that time period.

Slavery was not the driving issue in that the North went to War to stop it. Had that been the driving issue, Lincoln and the North would have freed the slaves but they didn't. That pretty much says it all to me.

If several of the southern states had not put slavery specifically in their secession proclamations, this would have more traction.

Pretty sure that Lincoln was being pragmatic in not freeing the slaves immediately. There was a lot of hope initially that things could be settled through negotiation.

But there are loads of details of the period that never grace the pages of your high school textbook.

Both Clint and John did do their duty in fine films about it though!

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

If several of the southern states had not put slavery specifically in their secession proclamations, this would have more traction.

Pretty sure that Lincoln was being pragmatic in not freeing the slaves immediately. There was a lot of hope initially that things could be settled through negotiation.

But there are loads of details of the period that never grace the pages of your high school textbook.

Both Clint and John did do their duty in fine films about it though!

Pragmatic. That's an interesting word. Pragmatic could easily be applied to the South as well. To them, it was pragmatic to keep slavery in place in order to continue to support their respective economies. Does that make it right? Pragmatic is an interesting word. Lincoln could have freed all the slaves but he did not. Call it Pragmatic or whatever you wish but the truth is that he did not take these steps. It is not as simple as the North fought to free the Slaves and the South Fought to keep slavery. Much more to it then that IMO.

The North tried to strangle Southern Economies in an attempt to claim these markets for themselves. I have never read anything that suggests the Northern Power Brokers intended to free any of the Slaves. It's an ugly time in our history and I don't look at either side and say that one was right and one was wrong. I just don't think you can do that.

 

[burmafrd]

If several of the southern states had not put slavery specifically in their secession proclamations, this would have more traction.

Pretty sure that Lincoln was being pragmatic in not freeing the slaves immediately. There was a lot of hope initially that things could be settled through negotiation.

But there are loads of details of the period that never grace the pages of your high school textbook.

Both Clint and John did do their duty in fine films about it though!

would expect nothing different from you.

States rights meant a lot more than about slavery. The South feared economic domination from the richer north. They already controlled the house; only the senate- in the South's view- kept the north from completely controlling everything.

Back then you first identified yourself as a Ohioan or Iowan or a Virginian; not as an American. Then you might go a little farther and say you were Southern or Northern.

Anyone trying to use 21st century ANYTHING to try and claim they understand or know WHAT REALLY HAPPENED back then is a moron; or part of the revisionist historical movement.

Ken Burns Civil War did a great job of showing that. You would be advised to educate yourself and watch it.

 

[Staggerlee]

would expect nothing different from you.

States rights meant a lot more than about slavery. The South feared economic domination from the richer north. They already controlled the house; only the senate- in the South's view- kept the north from completely controlling everything.

Back then you first identified yourself as a Ohioan or Iowan or a Virginian; not as an American. Then you might go a little farther and say you were Southern or Northern.

Anyone trying to use 21st century ANYTHING to try and claim they understand or know WHAT REALLY HAPPENED back then is a moron; or part of the revisionist historical movement.

Ken Burns Civil War did a great job of showing that. You would be advised to educate yourself and watch it.

So do you have a response for my post?

 

[03EBZ06]

another derailed thread :laugh2:

 

[burmafrd]

So do you have a response for my post?

most of your post was garbage but I will address the parts worth responding too.

First about the text books; they are standard all over the country so take your BS and stick it. It does not jibe with your PC little mind so you reject it.


Now as regards the Indians.

No they could not have done it for the following reasons.

1) The europeans would have kept coming; and the diseases bought by the Europeans would have done it no matter what.

2) the Indians were never organized enough to really get the job done anyway.

3) The Indian mentality as regards war never had a chance of militarily beating the Europeans. Europeans were used to wars lasting years; Indians were not. The Indians flat out did not have the staying power or patience.

 

[Risen Star]

Of course it was about slavery, but Lincoln was no abolitionist at heart. Had the South agreed not to export slavery to the new territories, Southern slavery would have continued on its merry way all through the Lincoln presidency. He only acted because the South left the Union.

That is true.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Of course it was about slavery, but Lincoln was no abolitionist at heart. Had the South agreed not to export slavery to the new territories, Southern slavery would have continued on its merry way all through the Lincoln presidency. He only acted because the South left the Union.

You need to read up on your Lincoln history. His views of slavery in general began as a child from the relationship between him and his father. (he felt his father treated him as slave labor. Selling his labor to neighbors and taking all of the money) While his views weren't as strong early on in life (ie, planning to free slaves) as they were at the end, they were definitely growing has he got older and not just because the southern states tried to secede from the Union.

The southern states were seceding BECAUSE the Union wanted to free the slaves. If they weren't being freed in the first place, the Confederates wouldn't have tried to secede in the first place!