Question about private islands

I have already mentioned the war waged against the American Indian, and specifically put that in a different category. Since it was US federal policy to push the Indians out of the way with the barrel of a gun.

Normal "White" society in the west was no where near as violent as you paint it.

Typically if you are trying to prove a point in a historical context that goes against consensus it is on you to provide sources.

And whether you like it or not "The ultra violent Wild West" was a myth - is the prevailing consensus.

''

Abilene's Marshal was decapitated. What more do you want? The argument that the Wild West was not a particulary violent time is just childish, as is the idea that Anarchy works.

Yeah it's all marketing trying to get adventurers to come out west. Even the indians were cool with it. and the Civil War never happened. people were just sharing gold and water. No one wore guns and the cattle were revered as sacred like in India. Tombstone was a paradise of happy people growing daffodils....in fact the town was named after the humanist, Alfred E. Tombstone.

That is anecdotal.

A police officer was murdered in the city I live last year. I don't live in a particularly violent city, and much like Tom Smith of Abilene the killing of police officers is rare.

Of all the divergent paths into flamewars I have witnessed on this forum, this is one of the oddest.

Figures it's in a Chaos thread.

The civil war did occur, an absolute bloodbath.

First, I didn't realize we were talking about war here. That is a far different conversation. As repulsive as I find war, it's not the same as the daily crime rate. As for the Indians, no they weren't cool with it at all, they were brutally slaughtered. Both were horrible times in U.S. history and are far different than the day to day lives of your average American citizen living in towns, such as Dodge City, Tombstone, etc. People did wear guns, yes, and bloodshed did occur, but it was not a rampant, wild, out of control period overall.

You are talking about a tiny Stagecoach stop that found it necessary to hire a Marshall as the population grew. That poor guy decided to ban guns from Abilene.

Yes things were just wonderful in Abilene.

The Wild West was pushed by genocidal maniacs scrambling for wealth at gunpoint.

Of course it's about war. There were wars happening everywhere about everything during that time. People were use to wholesale slaughter.

And in my example we are talking about a medium sized port city on the great lakes, where a police officer was gunned down trying to enforce the underage curfew. .

If your scale is that the old west was violent compared to ZERO violence, well of course it was.

My point is the old west wasn't particularly more violent than most of the history of the US. .

Again, the war against the American Indian (the genocidal part) is separate. That was government policy, and largely enforced by Federal troops. Furthermore much of the violence against Indians was perpetrated east of the Mississippi PRIOR to the civil war.

Back at post #40, anarchy was mentioned as a negative outcome, then at #59, anarchy was defined and defended for... well, it's not entirely clear how anarchy was going to help the situation, but anyway, anarchy was defended.

Since then, in the absence of a ResMod lock, this thread has been complete anarchy. So, how's that been working out for y'all, then?

Nothing "separate" about it. "What's a little genocide have to do with peoples respect for life?"---is really what you are saying.

It was based on gun-toting meat eaters collecting cows, people fighting over land, water and gold/minerals, and slaughtering Native Americans, rascism, slavery, power hungry companies vying for power and control. It was the lowest, corrupt, common denominator where the most guns in any given gang, won.

The Wild West was pushed by genocidal maniacs scrambling for wealth at gunpoint.

It sure as hell is not what I am saying. I am part Cherokee. I am saying the genocide wasn't a symptom of the WILD WEST

It was a continuation of the European Imperialism that began with Columbus.

The violence in the cow towns and mining towns of the "WILD WEST" was statistically small compared to the violence against the American Indian.

Which definitely did NOT start after the civil war and continued after most of the west was hardly "wild" anymore. Wounded Knee was in 1890.

------------------------

What I (and others) have been saying and you have been ignoring, is that for the typical white settler life in the Western towns wasn't markedly more violent than elsewhere during the time period, and it wasn't even all that comparatively violent to today's standard.

--------------------------

You seem to ignore any convention and speak in platitudes.

I have a BA in History, and in my opinion you haven't shown anything except the ability to be aggravating and make baseless claims.

Of course it was a continuation of European Imperialism. It's a continuation of human barbarism. And yes there was violence in the Eastern US as well. that is also why "normal people" in societies have laws and government. That is why there is a concept of ethics.

But minimizing the "Wild West" as a example of what happens when greed and lawlessness runs the show, is just silly. People saw the great potential for wealth, saw that laws were nearly non-existent and this attracted people and companies, intent on wealth, with little regard for other people just searching for "the promised land," or peace in general.

This thread changed course after I said to Chris Norse, "You must be kidding" to his claim that the wild west was a myth. As later revealed, he is pushing an Anarchist political agenda.

There is nothing 'baseless" about the Wild West, being a brutal and violent time and your claim that there is a preponderance of historians who think the "Wild West" was a myth is defending blatant revisionism.

So your main focus is to rail against anarchy - .

And the fact that most of the "WILD WEST" wasn't really statistically more "wild" than typical American society of the time period is insignificant. .

Corporations on the East coast were even more exploitive than in the West. This was after all the time that gave rise to the Robber Baron and insane excesses in Stock Market manipulations.

Try this one. Before the towns came to the West comparative "Anarchy" worked. It wasn't until increasing numbers of people were in one place that it became a problem..

It also wasnt until significant numbers of people were living near to Indians that it was decided to move them .. again.

Naive anarchy as commonly espoused, yes. Anarchy could only work if people have developed in innate enlightenment.




The "wild west" was a very unique and specific time, where people were moving west into a undeveloped country, in search of either freedom or wealth, before laws and government was really established, where the existing practice was genocide of less technologically advanced natives. The expansion was based in the unrestrained acquisition of wealth. Although that had happened before in other places in other times, the "discovery" of the Americas was a big new shiny toy.




Yes the East Coast was exploitive and violent as well, , but different from the meaning of "the wild west" as a phrase that refers to forgetting about city laws and venturing into a huge wilderness where law is non-existent or nearly so, to claim a stake, where people wear guns routinely in low population areas.



Native americans were not anarchists. Otherwise this point does not make sense. Of course in areas where there are no people or very few people, then there is no need for government or laws.




There was a prevailing attitude of "whats mine is mine what's your's is mine and I have the most guns and better weapons to back that up." The others wishing to invade someone's existing gang turf just has to bring bigger and better weapons.

Look at Mormon history as an example of what happened to people who where primarily in search of the "promised land." They were driven from everywhere they settled all the way to Utah and became militant themselves in the process. People in the small western towns, didn't give a darn about religious freedom etc. that supposedly was the basis of this country anymore then the slavers or Indian killers cared about life liberty and pursuit of happiness.

The big companies in the east were all about ravaging the west and defeating anything that got in it's way. The cowboys and bandits in the little towns, usually referred to, when the phrase Wild West is used, were not "normal people" out searching for peace and to settle down.

I give up. Believe what you want.

*facepalm* Not this again! Why can't you two just mute each other and move on with your SLives? Ban each other from your lands and save yourselves a ban from SL in general. Or do I have to play kindergarten teacher and put you two on opposite sides of the forum & grid?

Just wondering... are you two rl exes or something? You two fight an awful lot, and usually flame each other's threads.

*Sighs* IBTL

Umm not quite that punitive. We deported them all to Australia.

/me awaits the arrival of the antipodeans into the derailment.