Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Scott & Wes Frog Fan Forum' started by TopFrog, Feb 26, 2021.
Didn't see a response to this. The TCU-Wiley debate was during the 1935 season that was the focus of the movie. Here's a Fort Worth Magazine article confirming Jerk's account: https://fwtx.com/news/features/great-debate/
Apparently the TCU team won the 2015 rematch, arguing that violence is a justified response to political oppression.
Edit: See also, the following, which reports a different result; appears they did a home-and-home.
It's even more impressive that we took Wiley on at their height of success and it occurred with no incidents 27 years before we integrated at the undergraduate level.
I know I should have been more specific, but that was where I was going with that. If the black activists want to compare their social inequalities to the Native Americans, they are way off base and need to learn more about the history of the tribes of this country and what happened to them. As Flyfishingfrog pointed out, how about the tribes that were completely wiped out? I bet there is a very good chance they, black activists, would still claim they have been treated 1000 times worse because it wouldn't fit their narrative. I mean, if they want to talk about reparations, I believe Native Americans need to be put in the front of the line before them. You think that's going to happen anytime soon? We both know it isn't.
Thank you flyfishingfrog for going where I was going to go with my post. You said exactly what I have said to many of my African American friends that try to bring up how no other race in has been treat as bad as their race in the world, or in this country. I point out the Jews in WWII & the Native Americans might have a say in that, but as usual they dismiss those accounts. They claim those races haven't suffered like they have. I have had to just get up and walk away. There is no talking at that point.
Not sure LT would agree "It's not so bad, at least you weren't the victim of genocide" is as strong an argument as you seem to, but I could be wrong.
So you're saying the genocide of these other races is nothing compared to what the black activists are claiming? Gotcha...
Tell that to the 30 million estimated humans who died in the slave trade while being transported.
Yep, exactly what I said. Nailed it dead on.
And just because LT wouldn't agree doesn't mean Salfrog is wrong. That's kind of the point he was making.
This is true. Salfrog being wrong there is not dependent on LT recognizing it, I was just trying to keep it relevant to the thread and the topic at hand.
well we do know he would win the argument - because the other side has no voice since 98.5% of their ancestors were exterminated from the face of planet and thus are not alive to argue....
Wonder which choice they would make if faced with the options of death of their civilization vs brutal enslavement with eventual release?
are you now moving the argument to the US is responsible for all slave trading across the entire globe?
because 30 million Africans did not die being transported across the Middle Passage to the US. Even if you look at all slaves that were sent to the Western Hemisphere, it was less than 5 million at the highest estimates. And of the 10-15 million that were forced into slavery and sent via the Middle Passage to the "New World" - less than 350k of those were sent to North America.
We are discussing the role of the history of the US related to slavery and its effects on the black community - correct?
You are not trying to say that slavery in South America or Europe or any other continent has had a lasting effect on the descendants of slaves in the US are you?
Interestingly - the estimated 15 million people forced into slavery and sent across the Atlantic between 1525 and 1866 is about the same as the estimated number of Native American's alive in 1500. Of the 15 million slaves forced to the New World, it seems to be agreed that about 10 million of them lived through the transit. But of the 15 million Native Americans that existed in 1500 AD, less than 225,000 managed to survive the intentional and unintentional genocide of their race.
so 350k before 1900 to 48 million today or 15 million in 1500 to 7 million today...which race seems to have been more oppressed in our country's history?
...and the goalposts get moved again...
EDIT: flyfishingfrog beat me to it.
This took a turn.
But for the new discussion, if your family is not Native American or were not African American who were slaves here before the Civil War, then you really have no say as to which was worse between the two.
I would even venture a guess that those who have it worse are those that are slaves right now in the US instead of the ones who are ancestors of the two other groups, but that is more a gender issue. It is just the one that something can be done about, but not part of the current narrative.
FlyFishing, you list the total population of Native Americans at 15 million, but as with the slaves, it was a fairly small proportion that were living in North America, yes? What figure would you use as a comparison to the 350,000 slaves sent to NA as a baseline? I have seen recent estimates ranging from 1.9 million (Ubelaker 2006) to ~4 million (Milner & Chaplin 2010).
What does ancestry have to do with assessing historical importance and consequence? I’ll answer...absolutely nothing. If anything, ancestry may contaminate a dispassionate examination of history in favor of contemporary bias and agenda.
You want to be a Kroeber-ist or a Dobyns-ian?
Are you more comfortable with the “census” type calculation approach or the select a date and extrapolate backwards based on theoretical event results method
and are we talking all of North America or above the Rio Grande only?
lots of room to maneuver depending on the number we want to evaluate
so I don't agree with your top statement really - as Pharm stated later, people who are descendants like my wife tend to have a stronger perspective but also a stronger bias naturally.
And really to be honest - despite all my posting, I don't think it matters that we decide if or which is worse. They are both tragic events.
But the question is more in your second statement - should we not be spending our efforts on trying to stop these type of events from occurring again today and in the future instead of focusing all our efforts on debating the past?
The debate on the past is nothing more than a different attempt at a politically correct blame game or to find an acceptable excuse to support a groups current hardships and failures instead of focusing on opportunities for success.
My wife's family saw it for years - entire families that sat around waiting for their monthly check to survive in the Nation always had an excuse of why they were not working to improve their situation of dependence. When casinos came that just paid out to the members of the tribe, the checks got bigger so the struggle was less - but the result was not different.
However when you look at the communities that used the Casino to create actual jobs for their citizens instead of just checks or used the profits to fund infrastructure programs and to train tribal members with the skills needed to run the Nations and to work outside the Rez - the financial and quality of life growth in those tribes is 5x what it is in the ones where the check just got bigger.
So if you focus all your attention on trying to blame someone else for your lot in life and waiting on that group to pay you for your suffering - you will never move above the situation you were born into.
total gaslighting bs argument
Whataboutism, also known as whataboutery, is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument. Whataboutism is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda.
Not a legitimate debate tactic.