[QatzelOk]

Looking for something else, found this: Hispanics (mostly Mexican) in the U.S. about 2,000,000 in 1930 and around 51,000,000 in 2010, so much for the argument they were already here.

News Flash... time didn't start in 1930.

All of the current USA used to be non-USA territory. It was all stolen from other people through terror and war.

[Suntzu]

Are you now arguing that Paddock is Mexican?

Crypto-Mexican!

[Pants-of-dog]

Crypto-Mexican!

So no, you are not making an argument. Just posting your usual racist non-sequiturs.

[Suntzu]

News Flash... time didn't start in 1930.

All of the current USA used to be non-USA territory. It was all stolen from other people through terror and war.

History in Texas began in 1836. In 1836 there were about 20,000 gringos, 2,000 Mexicans and 2,000 Blacks. In 1930 there were 750,000 Mexican and by 2000 7,500,000 Mexicans. They must grow like mushrooms or come here from Mexico.

[Oxymandias]

@Suntzu

Yes, let's forget the last 1800 years of the territory that is now known as Texas. Also how is that relevant to @QatzelOk 's point anyways? What part of your post even responds to what he has said? Your post seems to just be plain racism that's only remotely relevant to the topic at hand.

[Suntzu]

@Suntzu

Yes, let's forget the last 1800 years of the territory that is now known as Texas. Also how is that relevant to @QatzelOk 's point anyways? What part of your post even responds to what he has said? Your post seems to just be plain racism that's only remotely relevant to the topic at hand.

Mexican is a race? During the last 1800 years before the gringos Texas was mostly empty, most of the folks there were savages who the Mexican/Spaniard were scared of.

[Oxymandias]

@Suntzu

Well you sure want to believe it is, heck in your exact post you use you use "Mexican" like it's a race. BTW I love how most of your arguments can be thrown out of the window just by asking for citations. So for your entire post I would like citations for your claims.

During the last 1800 years before the gringos Texas was mostly empty

Why don't you say that to the Alabama, Apache, Atakapan, Bidai, Caddo, Coahuiltecan, Comanche, Choctaw, Coushatta, Hasinai, Jumano, Karankawa, Kickapoo, Kiowa, Tonkawa, and Wichita peoples would you?

most of the folks there were savages who the Mexican/Spaniard were scared of.

1. How can Texas be simultaneously be empty while containing so many people? That's pretty ridiculous isn't it?

2. They're savages in your opinion. The term savage itself is subjective.

[Suntzu]

An account of some of the Indians in Texas:

"There was a cowardly tribe among us, the Tonkawas, who were at peace with the whites, but hated all other Indians of every tribe. Only a short time before this, a band of Wacoes had killed five of them while out hunting, and, of course, this increased their hatred toward [the Waco] Indians. Hearing that I had killed one of their enemies [a Waco], they came in a body, thirty of them, and insisted that I should go with them and show them the dead warrior.

As we went, their excitement and speed increased, and every now and then they would trot on faster than ever, while I trotted with them, determined to keep up and see what they intended doing. When they discovered the body, they seemed wild with delight or frenzy. They sprang upon the body, scalped him, cut off both legs at the knees, both hands at the wrists, pulled out his fingernails and toenails, strung them around their necks, and then motioned for me to move aside. Seeing they meant further violence to the body, already horribly mutilated, I demanded why I must move. They said, ‘We must shoot him through the head for good luck….’

I moved aside, and they shot….They then went back to the house and camped, getting me to furnish them some beef. They boiled their beef, and the hands and feet of the dead Waco together…. Upon inquiry, I found they intended having a dance, and would feed their squaws on the hands and feet of the dead Indian, believing that this would make them bring forth brave men who would hate their enemies and be able to endure hardness and face dangers.

They erected a pole, to which they attached the scalp, hands, and feet of the Waco, and then with horrible yells and gestures, all danced around it, while the squaws constantly danced up to the pole and took bites from the hands and feet and then would go back and dance again. They would prolong these dances three, five, and sometimes ten days.”

[Oxymandias]

@Suntzu

Citation please. This seems like a second hand account from a white Texan of one single tribe in Texas. It is not proof that all the tribes were savages or even that single tribe were savages. Who are you state that objectively, the aftermath of the French revolution wasn't just as barbaric as this potentially exaggerated account seen here? You simply cannot objectively do so, it's empirically impossible.

I assume you admit that you contradicted yourself given that you only responded to only one of my arguments in that post.

[Suntzu]

The Tonkawas were one of the more benign tribes. Texas is about 270,000 square miles. In 1800 there were about 5,000 gringos and as many as 45,000 Indians. That's about one person per 5.5 square miles, pretty empty.

[Oxymandias]

@Suntzu

Citation please! God, can you write any post without even alluding to some citation?

Once again you ignore 1800 years of Texas before the Spanish set their sites on it.

[anna]

An account of some of the Indians in Texas:

An account of some Americans and English:

Though the Spanish in Mexico had earlier offered head bounties, New Englanders were apparently the first to grasp the usefulness of scalps as proof of death. In 1637 they began paying their Indian allies for either the heads of their Pequot enemies or, when the return distance was too great, the scalps. New Englanders were also first to pay whites for Indian scalps (1675-76). The egalitarian French upped the ante in 1688 by offering to pay for any enemy scalps, white or Indian.

High scalp bounties (up to 100 pounds in 1704) encouraged grave robbing and inspired suspicion that entrepreneurs were killing friendlies for their pelts. Even men of God couldn't restrain themselves. One chaplain scalped two Indians in the 1720s only to be dispatched by friends of the deceased before he could claim his bounty. Another enterprising minister provisioned scalping gangs in return for a third of the cut.

Because they could be exchanged, captives generally commanded higher prices than scalps, but capture was a riskier proposition. In New Hampshire in 1697 Hannah Dustin and some fellow colonists killed their ten Indian captors, including six children, while they slept. Hannah had the good sense to collect the scalps, earning herself 50 pounds by some accounts.

But that's just New World stuff. The Old World has its own depravities, because rare is the culture without brutality.

[Suntzu]

Good on Hannah! In a way the Indians were good for Texas, they kept the cowardly Spanish and Mexicans out. The Indians were cowardly, usually attacking only isolated White families, often waiting until the men left. Eventually the Texans adopted Indian tactics and establishing the Texas Rangers who traveled light, hunting down and exterminating Indians.

If you want some interesting reading, look up the Battle of Adobe Wall and the Battle of Palo Duro Canyon.

[Oxymandias]

@Suntzu

Suntzu, I don't think you should be on a debate forum. You simply cannot handle it. You need to provide evidence when debating especially when making such bold claims like yours. I also now know why you became a soldier and joined the military in the first place. You like the romanticism of it, don't you?

[Politiks]

News Flash... time didn't start in 1930.

All of the current USA used to be non-USA territory. It was all stolen from other people through terror and war.

If you think like that then people living there before stole from some other people living there. We count when civilization came to be.

[Oxymandias]

@Politiks

Actually no one stole land from anyone, Indians didn't even believe that land belonged to anyone at all. Also those native american tribes are descendants of the tribes that crossed into North America after the Ice Age and they haven't moved at all until Europeans arrived.

Civilization is also a subjective term. Civilization at it's most basic and objective terms is a society, culture, or way of life in a particular area. The Indian tribes had this and therefore they are civilizations. Any other definition is way to subjective to be classified.

[Suntzu]

True, the Comanche were warlike late comers to Texas and preyed on other Indian tribes. We had Indian raids in Texas until well after the Civil War. Battle of Palo Duro Canyon was 1874.

[Pants-of-dog]

The myth that the US “civilised” the west by shooting the “savages” is one of many myths that the US tells itself where everything is solved by simply shooting everyone.

The (totally awesome) Die Hard movies are another example of such mythology.

The ongoing wars in the Middle East are yet another example.

Considering the ubiquitousness of this myth (i.e. that all problems are solved at gunpoint), it is no surprise that people like Paddock decide to solve their own problems the exact same way.

[SpecialOlympian]

White people scare me. Our society allows them to own enough weapons to outfit an army and somehow we are fine with that. If we want to be safe we should disarm all white people.

[Ter]

White people scare me. Our society allows them to own enough weapons to outfit an army and somehow we are fine with that. If we want to be safe we should disarm all white people.

Why disarm only white people?