Duuuh. There are facts: things happened, good or bad, and I take a view. Everyone does. That’s normal.
You can’t accept the good without the bad.
Bad sh!t was done, in the name of colonialism. The sooner you accept that, the easier it is on everyone.
You can justify it however you want, but it was bad sh!t nonetheless.
I have never denied that there were things done under the banner of colonialism that were bad.
What you have done systematically, is highlight certain events without presenting any balance to the argument. You have always assumed a higher moral status because of your 'research'. That is deeply flawed and wholly arrogant.
'Duuh' is somewhat condescending when you have glibly ducked my question about where you draw the line and I don't know what the heck does 'you can’t accept the good without the bad' mean?
It's also very subjective to say that 'There are facts: things happened,...'.
You can always present facts in a way conducive to your argument.
Infanticide is wrong. The Inuits used to commit infanticide. Therefore the fact is, that Inuit's are bad.
Let's take what used to be a traditional practice in Inuit society.
Mothers used to breast feed babies for up to 5 years. It took tremendous effort to raise the baby given the conditions and the limited resources of the land they inhabit.
If a woman became pregnant with another child during the tenure of raising a baby past breast feeding age, then the child, the mother and the family group could be severely compromised. On occasion, the Inuit's used to commit infanticide.
We can no longer say that it is fact that the Inuit's are bad for committing infanticide. We cannot also impress our ideas of morality on the Inuit's.
I wouldn't read any of your work simply because you are not an eminent historian.
What I would read is the latest edition of The Elements of Moral Philosophy by J Rachels. Do you want me to purchase you a copy?
Mate you can not pass judgement on the holocausf or any other awful things for all I care.
How on earth do you manage to bring the Holocaust into every argument regarding Empire?! It wasn't a lot do do with Empire, it was one man's tyranny.
It was one of the most awful atrocities of the 20th century.
It was also recognised as an atrocity then. No one is arguing that it wasn't.
It was the Allies who liberated the concentration camps.
Churchill (1933), interestingly:
“There is a danger of the odious conditions now ruling in Germany, being extended by conquest to Poland and another persecution and pogrom of Jews being begun in this new area.”
How can you make the comparison with British Empire and the Holocaust?
You are blurring the lines between the deliberate attempt to wipe a people out and the occupation of a foreign territory?
So let's get back to Empire then.
Where do you draw the line when it comes to who should apologise and who doesn't need to and how far back do you go?
Colonialism isn’t just geographical occupation and the driver was to attain and maintain political, religious and commercial reach. It’s impossible to make a binary choice of good or evil
“Give a man a fish and feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime. Teach a man to cycle and he will realize fishing is stupid and boring”
Fortunately for the British reputation, much of the subjugation of the natives and reliance on imported slaves in the USA happened after they had rebelled and claimed independence.
WRT 'autre temps, autre moeurs', Jane Austen's eligible bachelor's were often eligible because of wealth gained from using slaves. Far away, luckily, so it could be ignored. And anyway she is dead.
All I’m suggesting is a recognition of the bad stuff that was done.
“The x state recognises the [bad thing] x state did in y [colony/occupied land etc]. The state hopes to avoid doing [bad thing] in the future”
That would be a nice way for those collective groups to recognise more of their own history and come closer to a full acceptance of all their pasts in the future.
Of course there are contemporary reasons for why people do things and why groups do things.
The advantage of being in the future is you get some ability to take a more detached view of it. That can offer some insights. It also lets you come to a conclusion to see if things were, for example, net beneficial or not.
It’s not about casting swathes of people as good or bad, but I think examining *what actually happened* from as many perspectives as possible helps.
I ultimately think turning up somewhere, forcibly depleting the resources, using the locals as slaves, breaking up political systems to suit your own end, coming down hard and violently on any dissent etc etc etc all in the name of racial superiority, isn’t great.
Some people disagree and that’s fine.
What’s more interesting is how the history of colonialism is so caught up in politics and culture wars.
It’s like acknowledging that something that happened actually happened is now a political statement.
For me the problem with your position Pinno is that the logical conclusion ends up that you can't make moral judgements about anything. Empire was in the past but so is yesterday - can I make a judgement about that - if not about another society what about another family, another person?
We can make judgements based on modern morality whilst being sensitive to the social norms of the time. That is the norm, everyone does it, that is what Rick appears to be doing. I don't know what the previous is you to have on this issue but you seem to be trying to pick holes, unsuccessfully, in some fairly uncontroversial statements on this one,
We might do better by spending less time apologising for bad things that our dead ancestors did in the past and instead concentrating on fixing the things that people in one or two hundred years time will be agonising about apologising on our behalf for.
We might do better by spending less time apologising for bad things that our dead ancestors did in the past and instead concentrating on fixing the things that people in one or two hundred years time will be agonising about apologising on our behalf for.
Like I said it’s not either or, nor is it urgent.
It’s good practice.
And I don’t think it necessarily needs to be an apology. Recognition is fine.
I don’t think scoring and comparing is all that useful.
To pass any sort of moral judgement you need to make a comparison to something.
Really?
Yes really. The Romans probably thought decimation was pretty moral, after all, 90% got to live. Looking back and comparing with modern methods of discipline it looks a little harsh.
I think it is a mistake to think that the existence of a phenomenon - decimation for example - means that people thought that was necessarily morally acceptable. Mankind is exceptionally skilled at fabricating excuses, exceptions and justification for things they know to be otherwise immoral. The justification is usually one based on power: they are weaker/lesser than us therefore this action, which would otherwise be unacceptable but provides me with some advantage, is permitted. I don't think there's much difference between Roman society thinking criminals were fair game for the circus and for example the reaction to Shamima Begum.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
We might do better by spending less time apologising for bad things that our dead ancestors did in the past and instead concentrating on fixing the things that people in one or two hundred years time will be agonising about apologising on our behalf for.
Like I said it’s not either or, nor is it urgent.
It’s good practice.
And I don’t think it necessarily needs to be an apology. Recognition is fine.
Would that help?
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.
I don’t think scoring and comparing is all that useful.
To pass any sort of moral judgement you need to make a comparison to something.
Really?
Yes really. The Romans probably thought decimation was pretty moral, after all, 90% got to live. Looking back and comparing with modern methods of discipline it looks a little harsh.
I think it is a mistake to think that the existence of a phenomenon - decimation for example - means that people thought that was necessarily morally acceptable. Mankind is exceptionally skilled at fabricating excuses, exceptions and justification for things they know to be otherwise immoral. The justification is usually one based on power: they are weaker/lesser than us therefore this action, which would otherwise be unacceptable but provides me with some advantage, is permitted. I don't think there's much difference between Roman society thinking criminals were fair game for the circus and for example the reaction to Shamima Begum.
Trying to ensure that Shamima Begum is treated fairly is probably time better spent than asking the Italians (or Rome residents - not sure who qualifies) to acknowledge sins 2000 years ago
We might do better by spending less time apologising for bad things that our dead ancestors did in the past and instead concentrating on fixing the things that people in one or two hundred years time will be agonising about apologising on our behalf for.
Like I said it’s not either or, nor is it urgent.
It’s good practice.
And I don’t think it necessarily needs to be an apology. Recognition is fine.
Would that help?
Yes. I don't think personal apologies for things our ancestors did are particularly meaningful but it is worth acknowledging that most of us have indirectly benefitted from those actions, particularly when the after effects of those actions can still be seen. Symbolic apologies by one government to another can be useful in furthering that acknowledgement.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
I don’t think scoring and comparing is all that useful.
To pass any sort of moral judgement you need to make a comparison to something.
Really?
Yes really. The Romans probably thought decimation was pretty moral, after all, 90% got to live. Looking back and comparing with modern methods of discipline it looks a little harsh.
I think it is a mistake to think that the existence of a phenomenon - decimation for example - means that people thought that was necessarily morally acceptable. Mankind is exceptionally skilled at fabricating excuses, exceptions and justification for things they know to be otherwise immoral. The justification is usually one based on power: they are weaker/lesser than us therefore this action, which would otherwise be unacceptable but provides me with some advantage, is permitted. I don't think there's much difference between Roman society thinking criminals were fair game for the circus and for example the reaction to Shamima Begum.
Trying to ensure that Shamima Begum is treated fairly is probably time better spent than asking the Italians (or Rome residents - not sure who qualifies) to acknowledge sins 2000 years ago
Of course, but if you don't accept where you have come from you how will you do better next time. That we are still making the same excuses suggests we could learn something from our past.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
We might do better by spending less time apologising for bad things that our dead ancestors did in the past and instead concentrating on fixing the things that people in one or two hundred years time will be agonising about apologising on our behalf for.
Like I said it’s not either or, nor is it urgent.
It’s good practice.
And I don’t think it necessarily needs to be an apology. Recognition is fine.
What actually is it that we aren't recognising? I think generally we are pretty obsessed about feeling guilty over things we have no control over (the past); compared to most countries we seem to be quite good at this. I take your point re specific Govt recognition but the Govt won't recognise the lies Boris said yesterday as such so it's hard to see it bothering much about long past history. It's not hard to imagine how Boris would have behaved had he been alive 150 years ago.
We might do better by spending less time apologising for bad things that our dead ancestors did in the past and instead concentrating on fixing the things that people in one or two hundred years time will be agonising about apologising on our behalf for.
Like I said it’s not either or, nor is it urgent.
It’s good practice.
And I don’t think it necessarily needs to be an apology. Recognition is fine.
Would that help?
Yes. I don't think personal apologies for things our ancestors did are particularly meaningful but it is worth acknowledging that most of us have indirectly benefitted from those actions, particularly when the after effects of those actions can still be seen. Symbolic apologies by one government to another can be useful in furthering that acknowledgement.
Yes. But would that help?
Meaningless symbols and words that won’t make a jot of a difference.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.
Empire was in the past but so is yesterday - can I make a judgement about that - if not about another society what about another family, another person?
No. Rick blankets the whole of Empire as bad. Never once giving any balance.
I am the son of a man that fought the Mau Mau. What he witnessed was no fabrication and he mentally suffered for that.
What I always find bewildering is the utter naivity to which people view Africa having never lived there.
It wasn't all 'beat people into submission' and the highly emotive rhetoric is chucked around ad nauseum until you actually start to challenge the arguments. And, you're not allowed to challenge their perceived high moral status for the fear of being labelled a racist.
It seems to be a badge of honour to assume a position that is Politically Correct without ever questioning what that actually means.
Of course, but if you don't accept where you have come from you how will you do better next time. That we are still making the same excuses suggests we could learn something from our past.
Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it etc. etc.
Equally, I don't think the opposite of whitewashing of history is particularly productive. In this particular case, it is not hard to argue that Hong Kong benefited in some ways from colonialism. Of course, it would have been even better off if Britain hadn't done X, Y and Z, but it would have been worse off if it had suffered Mao. It's worth noting that Britain probably did X to its own citizens at the time too.
Of course, but if you don't accept where you have come from you how will you do better next time. That we are still making the same excuses suggests we could learn something from our past.
Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it etc. etc.
Equally, I don't think the opposite of whitewashing of history is particularly productive. In this particular case, it is not hard to argue that Hong Kong benefited in some ways from colonialism. Of course, it would have been even better off if Britain hadn't done X, Y and Z, but it would have been worse off if it had suffered Mao. It's worth noting that Britain probably did X to its own citizens at the time too.
It's also worth noting that it was the Aristocracy who benefitted from the colonies. The Victorian era was littered with examples of extreme poverty, poor houses, deportation etc etc
It's not like we the people have to apologise for them the ruling class, the one's who made the decisions.
I ultimately think the entire premise of 19th C colonialism is pretty bad.
Turning up somewhere to boss them about (often violently -and often against their will), plunder the resources, use locals as slaves, put down rebellions violently, treating locals as sub human, and generally exploit the local populace for your own gain, isn’t great.
Nor do I think the world was a net beneficiary.
You can disagree. I don’t really care.
Though perhaps when you see some of the Empire rhetoric coming out of the more right parts of the U.K., you can see why I quote like to have people reflect the past accurately.
We might do better by spending less time apologising for bad things that our dead ancestors did in the past and instead concentrating on fixing the things that people in one or two hundred years time will be agonising about apologising on our behalf for.
Like I said it’s not either or, nor is it urgent.
It’s good practice.
And I don’t think it necessarily needs to be an apology. Recognition is fine.
Would that help?
Yes. I don't think personal apologies for things our ancestors did are particularly meaningful but it is worth acknowledging that most of us have indirectly benefitted from those actions, particularly when the after effects of those actions can still be seen. Symbolic apologies by one government to another can be useful in furthering that acknowledgement.
Yes. But would that help?
Meaningless symbols and words that won’t make a jot of a difference.
Who said they're meaningless? A symbol must have meaning otherwise it's not really a symbol. Public statements by governments can and do change the environment and allow other things to happen. May's early rhetoric on Brexit was ridiculed for being meaningless but that uncompromising approach is now supported by a large chunk of the population who might previously have accepted more of a compromise. Words matter.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Who said they're meaningless? A symbol must have meaning otherwise it's not really a symbol. Public statements by governments can and do change the environment and allow other things to happen. May's early rhetoric on Brexit was ridiculed for being meaningless but that uncompromising approach is now supported by a large chunk of the population who might previously have accepted more of a compromise. Words matter.
You clearly have a much higher level of faith in those words and symbols than I do.
They'd be forgotten in the blink of an eye if it suited.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.
Who said they're meaningless? A symbol must have meaning otherwise it's not really a symbol. Public statements by governments can and do change the environment and allow other things to happen. May's early rhetoric on Brexit was ridiculed for being meaningless but that uncompromising approach is now supported by a large chunk of the population who might previously have accepted more of a compromise. Words matter.
You clearly have a much higher level of faith in those words and symbols than I do.
They'd be forgotten in the blink of an eye if it suited.
That's why making it formal helps, no?
It's harder to deny stuff happened if the government of the nation who was responsible has accepted responsibility.
FWIW the British gov't has in some instances anyway - usually when there has been a concerted campaign on behalf of the victims. It's just a little piecemeal.
Who said they're meaningless? A symbol must have meaning otherwise it's not really a symbol. Public statements by governments can and do change the environment and allow other things to happen. May's early rhetoric on Brexit was ridiculed for being meaningless but that uncompromising approach is now supported by a large chunk of the population who might previously have accepted more of a compromise. Words matter.
You clearly have a much higher level of faith in those words and symbols than I do.
They'd be forgotten in the blink of an eye if it suited.
Hope, maybe. It takes time, but things do generally improve over time.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Who said they're meaningless? A symbol must have meaning otherwise it's not really a symbol. Public statements by governments can and do change the environment and allow other things to happen. May's early rhetoric on Brexit was ridiculed for being meaningless but that uncompromising approach is now supported by a large chunk of the population who might previously have accepted more of a compromise. Words matter.
You clearly have a much higher level of faith in those words and symbols than I do.
They'd be forgotten in the blink of an eye if it suited.
That's why making it formal helps, no?
It's harder to deny stuff happened if the government of the nation who was responsible has accepted responsibility.
FWIW the British gov't has in some instances anyway - usually when there has been a concerted campaign on behalf of the victims. It's just a little piecemeal.
I don’t think anyone is denying the events.
Equally I doubt anyone has sincere remorse for historical actions.
Historical as in previous generations actions.
Nor would I hold today’s generation culpable.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.
Who said they're meaningless? A symbol must have meaning otherwise it's not really a symbol. Public statements by governments can and do change the environment and allow other things to happen. May's early rhetoric on Brexit was ridiculed for being meaningless but that uncompromising approach is now supported by a large chunk of the population who might previously have accepted more of a compromise. Words matter.
You clearly have a much higher level of faith in those words and symbols than I do.
They'd be forgotten in the blink of an eye if it suited.
That's why making it formal helps, no?
It's harder to deny stuff happened if the government of the nation who was responsible has accepted responsibility.
FWIW the British gov't has in some instances anyway - usually when there has been a concerted campaign on behalf of the victims. It's just a little piecemeal.
I don’t think anyone is denying the events.
Equally I doubt anyone has sincere remorse for historical actions.
Historical as in previous generations actions.
Nor would I hold today’s generation culpable.
I think they are. Or at least that they weren't as bad as all that. A small example: my brother was telling me about a visit to Denver's Natural History Museum. Native Americans were depicted in the exhibits as part of the fauna; wild animals to be moved out of the way to allow People to settle and farm.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Posts
Therein lies the rub.
Duuuh. There are facts: things happened, good or bad, and I take a view. Everyone does. That’s normal.
You can’t accept the good without the bad.
Bad sh!t was done, in the name of colonialism. The sooner you accept that, the easier it is on everyone.
You can justify it however you want, but it was bad sh!t nonetheless.
I have never denied that there were things done under the banner of colonialism that were bad.
What you have done systematically, is highlight certain events without presenting any balance to the argument. You have always assumed a higher moral status because of your 'research'. That is deeply flawed and wholly arrogant.
'Duuh' is somewhat condescending when you have glibly ducked my question about where you draw the line and I don't know what the heck does 'you can’t accept the good without the bad' mean?
It's also very subjective to say that 'There are facts: things happened,...'.
You can always present facts in a way conducive to your argument.
Infanticide is wrong. The Inuits used to commit infanticide. Therefore the fact is, that Inuit's are bad.
Let's take what used to be a traditional practice in Inuit society.
Mothers used to breast feed babies for up to 5 years. It took tremendous effort to raise the baby given the conditions and the limited resources of the land they inhabit.
If a woman became pregnant with another child during the tenure of raising a baby past breast feeding age, then the child, the mother and the family group could be severely compromised. On occasion, the Inuit's used to commit infanticide.
We can no longer say that it is fact that the Inuit's are bad for committing infanticide. We cannot also impress our ideas of morality on the Inuit's.
I wouldn't read any of your work simply because you are not an eminent historian.
What I would read is the latest edition of The Elements of Moral Philosophy by J Rachels. Do you want me to purchase you a copy?
Not long now. Thank fook. :roll:
Colonialism isn’t just geographical occupation and the driver was to attain and maintain political, religious and commercial reach. It’s impossible to make a binary choice of good or evil
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/h ... 21756.html
Desmond Tutu
WRT 'autre temps, autre moeurs', Jane Austen's eligible bachelor's were often eligible because of wealth gained from using slaves. Far away, luckily, so it could be ignored. And anyway she is dead.
All I’m suggesting is a recognition of the bad stuff that was done.
“The x state recognises the [bad thing] x state did in y [colony/occupied land etc]. The state hopes to avoid doing [bad thing] in the future”
That would be a nice way for those collective groups to recognise more of their own history and come closer to a full acceptance of all their pasts in the future.
Of course there are contemporary reasons for why people do things and why groups do things.
The advantage of being in the future is you get some ability to take a more detached view of it. That can offer some insights. It also lets you come to a conclusion to see if things were, for example, net beneficial or not.
It’s not about casting swathes of people as good or bad, but I think examining *what actually happened* from as many perspectives as possible helps.
I ultimately think turning up somewhere, forcibly depleting the resources, using the locals as slaves, breaking up political systems to suit your own end, coming down hard and violently on any dissent etc etc etc all in the name of racial superiority, isn’t great.
Some people disagree and that’s fine.
What’s more interesting is how the history of colonialism is so caught up in politics and culture wars.
It’s like acknowledging that something that happened actually happened is now a political statement.
We can make judgements based on modern morality whilst being sensitive to the social norms of the time. That is the norm, everyone does it, that is what Rick appears to be doing. I don't know what the previous is you to have on this issue but you seem to be trying to pick holes, unsuccessfully, in some fairly uncontroversial statements on this one,
Like I said it’s not either or, nor is it urgent.
It’s good practice.
And I don’t think it necessarily needs to be an apology. Recognition is fine.
I think it is a mistake to think that the existence of a phenomenon - decimation for example - means that people thought that was necessarily morally acceptable. Mankind is exceptionally skilled at fabricating excuses, exceptions and justification for things they know to be otherwise immoral. The justification is usually one based on power: they are weaker/lesser than us therefore this action, which would otherwise be unacceptable but provides me with some advantage, is permitted. I don't think there's much difference between Roman society thinking criminals were fair game for the circus and for example the reaction to Shamima Begum.
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition
I am not sure. You have no chance.
Trying to ensure that Shamima Begum is treated fairly is probably time better spent than asking the Italians (or Rome residents - not sure who qualifies) to acknowledge sins 2000 years ago
Yes. I don't think personal apologies for things our ancestors did are particularly meaningful but it is worth acknowledging that most of us have indirectly benefitted from those actions, particularly when the after effects of those actions can still be seen. Symbolic apologies by one government to another can be useful in furthering that acknowledgement.
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition
Of course, but if you don't accept where you have come from you how will you do better next time. That we are still making the same excuses suggests we could learn something from our past.
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition
What actually is it that we aren't recognising? I think generally we are pretty obsessed about feeling guilty over things we have no control over (the past); compared to most countries we seem to be quite good at this. I take your point re specific Govt recognition but the Govt won't recognise the lies Boris said yesterday as such so it's hard to see it bothering much about long past history. It's not hard to imagine how Boris would have behaved had he been alive 150 years ago.
Meaningless symbols and words that won’t make a jot of a difference.
I am not sure. You have no chance.
This is incorrect. I have stated my opinion on past genocide.
Your statement is equivocal.
No. Rick blankets the whole of Empire as bad. Never once giving any balance.
I am the son of a man that fought the Mau Mau. What he witnessed was no fabrication and he mentally suffered for that.
What I always find bewildering is the utter naivity to which people view Africa having never lived there.
It wasn't all 'beat people into submission' and the highly emotive rhetoric is chucked around ad nauseum until you actually start to challenge the arguments. And, you're not allowed to challenge their perceived high moral status for the fear of being labelled a racist.
It seems to be a badge of honour to assume a position that is Politically Correct without ever questioning what that actually means.
Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it etc. etc.
Equally, I don't think the opposite of whitewashing of history is particularly productive. In this particular case, it is not hard to argue that Hong Kong benefited in some ways from colonialism. Of course, it would have been even better off if Britain hadn't done X, Y and Z, but it would have been worse off if it had suffered Mao. It's worth noting that Britain probably did X to its own citizens at the time too.
It's also worth noting that it was the Aristocracy who benefitted from the colonies. The Victorian era was littered with examples of extreme poverty, poor houses, deportation etc etc
It's not like we the people have to apologise for them the ruling class, the one's who made the decisions.
Turning up somewhere to boss them about (often violently -and often against their will), plunder the resources, use locals as slaves, put down rebellions violently, treating locals as sub human, and generally exploit the local populace for your own gain, isn’t great.
Nor do I think the world was a net beneficiary.
You can disagree. I don’t really care.
Though perhaps when you see some of the Empire rhetoric coming out of the more right parts of the U.K., you can see why I quote like to have people reflect the past accurately.
Look to where there are natural resources that can be used and abused. Middle East, Amazon.......
I am not sure. You have no chance.
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition
They'd be forgotten in the blink of an eye if it suited.
I am not sure. You have no chance.
That's why making it formal helps, no?
It's harder to deny stuff happened if the government of the nation who was responsible has accepted responsibility.
FWIW the British gov't has in some instances anyway - usually when there has been a concerted campaign on behalf of the victims. It's just a little piecemeal.
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition
Equally I doubt anyone has sincere remorse for historical actions.
Historical as in previous generations actions.
Nor would I hold today’s generation culpable.
I am not sure. You have no chance.
I think they are. Or at least that they weren't as bad as all that. A small example: my brother was telling me about a visit to Denver's Natural History Museum. Native Americans were depicted in the exhibits as part of the fauna; wild animals to be moved out of the way to allow People to settle and farm.
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition