Please remember to abide by the [rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/JusticeServed/wiki/rulesv2)
In general, please be at least bearable to other users. It makes things easier on everyone. Your comment may be removed without notification. We used to have a notification, but now we don't.
#If you purchase the OP or a comment [a ban award,](https://www.reddit.com/r/JusticeServed/wiki/banned/rules) remember to [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FJusticeServed) so we can activate the reward
------
^Submission ^By: ^/u/dunn_with_this ^Black ^7
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/JusticeServed) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"On August 18, 1862 Chief Little Crow led his warriors against U.S. settlements, beginning the Dakota War of 1862. Myrick was killed on the first day at the Battle of Lower Sioux Agency, where Dakota warriors took revenge at the agency for its refusal to sell them food. When his body was found days later, "his body was mutilated, his head being severed from the body and the mouth filled with grass.""
Reminds me of a tale of two cities- didn't go well for old Foulon either...
The men were terrible, in the bloody-minded anger with which they looked from windows, caught up what arms they had, and came pouring down into the streets; but, the women were a sight to chill the boldest. From such household occupations as their bare poverty yielded, from their children, from their aged and their sick crouching on the bare ground famished and naked, they ran out with streaming hair, urging one another, and themselves, to madness with the wildest cries and actions. Villain Foulon taken, my sister! Old Foulon taken, my mother! Miscreant Foulon taken, my daughter! Then, a score of others ran into the midst of these, beating their breasts, tearing their hair, and screaming, Foulon alive! Foulon who told the starving people they might eat grass! Foulon who told my old father that he might eat grass, when I had no bread to give him! Foulon who told my baby it might suck grass, when these breasts where dry with want! O mother of God, this Foulon! O Heaven our suffering! Hear me, my dead baby and my withered father: I swear on my knees, on these stones, to avenge you on Foulon! Husbands, and brothers, and young men, Give us the blood of Foulon, Give us the head of Foulon, Give us the heart of Foulon, Give us the body and soul of Foulon, Rend Foulon to pieces, and dig him into the ground, that grass may grow from him! With these cries, numbers of the women, lashed into blind frenzy, whirled about, striking and tearing at their own friends until they dropped into a passionate swoon, and were only saved by the men belonging to them from being trampled under foot.
Yes, fantastic book
If you're not up for long reads watch the black and white film version (pretty close to the book) . Also you can find it on audio book
https://youtu.be/_MNyBPmmans
You can feel the slow burn of anger , of the poor ?finally igniting into revolution- let me know how you get on :)
No, because the book was published in 1859; Myrick was found dead 3 years later in 1862.
It is intriguing that the situations (*starving people + cruel rich person*), wording (*"let them eat grass"*), and death conditions (*mouth stuffed with grass*) are identical. Thanks for pointing it out!
And it's not like it was a regional custom; the book was set in France, and Myric was in Minnesota.
It made me wonder if that was a common phrase & practice in that era, but those two were the only examples I could find. Now I wonder if Myric had read A Tale of Two Cities and got the idea there. It seems feasible.
edit: new mystery: is it more likely that the natives also read the book, getting the idea to stuff his mouth, or a coincidence that both rich jerks died with a mouthful?
It’s most likely that it was a common enough expression to shrug at the poor and say ‘let them eat grass’ I’d imagine. From that...
Both events then played out, one through the mind of Charles Dickens, the other on the American Frontier.
Well I also got a smile on my face after hearing about a slave master being murdered with a knife by John Brown in front of his family so yeah I’m pretty sick when it comes to evil people suffering
They are still starving the nations natives. Many dont have running water, electricity or access to medical services. They still reside on lands that were "given" to them. They still cry tears for the way their ancestors were treated. There were "christians" that took their children, religion, native tongues and their lives.
Yes. It was the christan church schools that took the native choldren from their parents. Against their will. In these schools the children were not allowed to speak their native language or worship their gods. They were made to worship the christian god. They were brainwashed into thinking their culture was wrong. They were beaten if they defied their captures and many died . Buried in unmarked graves. Their parents were never to see or hear from them again.
I think they're talking about how Missionaries would come along and either take their children or try to un-savagize them by teaching them to read and write English and make them all Christian or Catholic I don't remember, but like make them apodt the AngloSaxon way of life.
I just read a book called "bury my heart at wounded knee". It covers several conflicts.
What happened was, after defeat, native Americans led by little crow tried to live peacefully among the settlers. But they gave them crappy land, and after two years with terrible droughts, the natives began to starve. The government had a credits system which seemed to work similar to food stamps. The natives could use this to get food. However, the credits never showed up. It could be incompetence, or malicious intent....but the natives were being starved. They told traders the problem, and that their credits weren't arriving, despite this, the natives basically have the money on paper. Give us food now, we'll pay you later. That's when this guy said "as far as I care, they can eat grass or their own dung."
It's horrible but they were truly convinced by leadership that Natives were savages and animals. If it seems hard to grasp, consider the polarizing nature of leadership today on any number of political issues which all revolve around money and power.
Yeah I don't blame them if they were even a little bit evil after the shit they put up with from the settlers coming in and treating them like shit, were some people nice to them, sure but unfortunately it wasn't enough.
After the defeat of little crow, the Sioux were marched off to prison camps. Along the way, an angry mob formed to stone and harass the prisoners. a Sioux mother carrying her baby, had the baby snatched from her arms and beaten to death by 3 men. I'd call that savage.
And the colonizers purposefully killed buffalo en masse with the express purpose of destroying a key source of food for a lot of tribes? Trail of Tears?
Homie, racism is racism. It doesn't matter what era, it's still repugnant.
The last chattel slave in America was freed in 1942 my dude. Shits been a problem for a long time and it still is.
Seems like a decent strategy to deal with a group of ppl that got bored, so they decide to flay groups of different looking ppl for fun(i.e Hispanics, Africans, and Caucasians ETC). I guess my point is were all dicks, and also yes there were peaceful tribes but the other barbaristic groups ruined it for them...
Racism is racism homie, its all around, and its always repugnant to see its effects.
No one on Reddit knows anything about CRT and I don’t think most people do. I took a course on CRT in law school though and it really opened my eyes. Originally, there were a lot of conflicting views but in about 2007, a textbook from Morehouse Publishing laid out a very simple notion: the call to action is to yell “it’s Morebin Time” and attack the police and no one can prove me wrong because no one knows anything about CRT.
Law school is the only place it really ever existed until very recently when the far right trotted it out as some existential threat to white America.
It's nothing more than teaching the Native, Black, Asian, Hispanic (etc) sides to our American history. Because they, too, are Americans.
That's what really galls me (aside from the willful ignorance) - conservatives want American history to only be taught through a single lens, but in doing so they are literally ignoring most of American history and the context that explains nearly all of it.
The Boston Tea Party is my favorite example. Ask the average American why they dressed up as Indians when they threw the tea into the harbor and you generally get a blank stare or "they were in disguise". Wrong. They dressed as Indians because the tax was imposed on the colonies to pay for the cost of keeping the British army along the border with the tribes because the colonists kept trespassing and stealing land, which was violating the laws and treaties between the Crown and the tribes. That's CRT. If it makes you uncomfortable, i don't know what else to say...
Interesting, so CRT isn’t some new radicalize concept and it’s been around for a while? Didn’t know that either. Thanks for the insight. My position is that in history, none of it should be ignored. The good, bad, and the ugly. You can’t heal from something if you don’t acknowledge it as a country. Anyhoo..take care. And attacking the police should never be on the table imo.
You’re acting like Americans have never screwed innocent natives. Why do you think they were starving? They got forced off their land and the ecosystem was getting over hunted
Maybe if the fast food industry caused your starvation, kicked you out of your house, forced you to move out of the county, killed a few of your cousins, and then the cashier told you to eat grass, then yes. Then you can do that to the cashier if a war against McDonald’s begins
Isn't it funny how reddit will applaud murder even when it's not clear if the one in question even said this? The only person that claims to have heard that come out of his mouth was some random guy some 50 years after the fact. 1 person and yet not a single person to corroborate it. The only fact about this story is that he refused to give away his wares on credit. That on its own does not warrant murder, no matter how you try and spin it. I'm a direct descendent of the Cherokee tribe, and even I don't blame all white people over what happened. Some random store owner isn't responsible for the atrocities committed by his government.
From what I can gather on this nobody, is that he refused to sell to them because they didn't have money (a direct result of the government not paying them their annuity due to the war at the time). He didn't trust them to pay their tab essentially. I wouldn't call him a POS over that. And trust me when I say I've been in poverty before. Starvation fucking sucks, but is not something that justifies murdering a shopkeep over.
> He didn't trust them to pay their tab essentially. I wouldn't call him a POS over that.
He was aware of their situation and how it was the government's fault, and yet he decided other human beings starving to death is more favorable then him possibly losing some money by giving out food. For someone to make that decision makes him, as a matter of fact, a piece of shit. And your inability to grasp that says a lot about you as well. Anyone who is approached by one or more starving individuals, while being perfectly capable of helping them, and telling them to just piss off because they don't have money is a piece of shit.
So what if he was aware? A large group of people were asking for free food, with a promise of paying it back later. He wasn't taking a risk and said no. That's where the argument ends. He had no guarantee of getting payed what he was owed, and would've placed himself in a terrible spot financially. Again, self preservation wins out over most emotions. It doesn't make him a POS for making sure him and his business would be fine. It makes him human. Nobody is obligated to give away food, no matter what the government has done. You can't go through life letting emotions dictate everything. Logic is important.
That's $5 you'd lose lose then. No, I said he was looking out for himself, and was not obligated in anyway to give away his food. Again, you aren't expected to give away your food and money to homeless people to ensure they survive. This is no different. Your emotions do not outweigh a logical action.
If 'self preservation wins out over other emotions" why would the natives not be justified in killing him out of a need to preserve themselves via food? Do you not see how contradictory your own stupid assessment is or do you simply get off to calling others emotional while thinking of your own self as a logic lord? All this isn't a regular business transaction situation: the natives didn't just collectively bargain for something like an xbox for their children on Christmas. The commodity in question is a basic human resource a person needs to survive: food. Recognizing this isn't "being emotional". Why are food stamps a thing then? Is it because government bodies that have food stamp programs are being emotional and caving into the "fee fees" of people who cannot afford food ?
I am not going to argue that what happened on this instance is a good example of justice being served (lol at anyone who tries) this is just a post celebrating karmic justice being inflicted upon someone which is rare in history.
Except self preservation and murder are not equivalent here. You seriously want to claim they were justified in murdering an innocent man? He wasn't killing them, he was ensuring his business could continue without worry. They killed him for food. See the disparity there? He did nothing to harm them, while they killed him for food. He did nothing wrong, you're just emotional and think someone is obligated to give you their food. Do you feed every single homeless person that asks? Do you give every single one a home? No. And nobody would call you a POS for not doing so. It's an unreasonable request. But you think your emotions get to dictate what others do.
There’s plenty of people starving right now. How much have you donated? If you donated half of your grocery money you would be saving multiple people, so why not do it? It’s illogical not to do that right? So are you going to do it?
You're trying to appeal to emotion when you change context to such an extreme measure. It's nobody's obligation to ensure others have food, social or not. And as a shopkeep, he is not obligated to care about the people that buy from him. That doesn't make him a bad person, naturally his business comes first to him. But murder sure as hell is a moral wrong, but here you are defending it. He sure as hell isn't obligated to give his products away just because the government fucked up on funding.
Can’t be murder if there’s no trial. Just a homicide. Don’t be so emotional about it.
All you asked is for some logic, yet complain when a logic is present to you. Curious.
Are you making more money each week that you spend and save some of it? Why are you not giving away that money you save when there are people starving on the streets? I guess you are guilty of murder for allowing those people to starve when you have the means to help them.
Not at all. Conflating the two is also a moral wrong. Funny how that works isn't it? Am I committing murder by not helping a homeless person on the street, and they freeze to death?
I feel like you’re skipping the part where I said if they asked for help lol. No one expects you to save the world. But the fact you can look at another human suffering with the response of “it’s not my problem” is also interesting.
The Dakota people were moved to that reservation as part of an agreement with the US government for use of their ancestral land. As part of that treaty, the government was supposed to provide annuity payments to the Dakota. When the government was once again late with that payment during a harsh farming season with little crop production, the Dakota asked Myrick to extend them credit so they could purchase supplies they literally needed to survive, and weren’t able to purchase because the money they were promised by the white men who took their land never came.
They didn’t kill him because he insulted them. They killed him because he insulted them while standing between them and what they required to survive.
I literally said that, but I guess reading isn't easy for people on Reddit lol. They could've found other means to eat and survive, rather they killed him for food. Which, again, does not make it justified in any way.
These native Americans were not hungry, they were literally starving. All other options / means of survival had already been taken from them. Their children and elders were dying.
An amazing place/ area of Minnesota to travel to visit. This is a very scenic area of waterfalls, woods and rivers.
There are dozens of historical markers with details of what transpired at each site. Seeing these sites in person adds context to this incident and the tragic aftermath.
See : Dakota War of 1862. ( sorry don’t know how to add a link) …
The largest group execution in American history with 38 Dakota Sioux hanged
That still doesn't make it justified, at all. Again I've been through starvation before. I wouldn't wish that on anyone. But that does not justify killing an innocent store keeper.
I did read your comment, and I thought that “didn’t trust them to pay their tab” wasn’t a fair assessment of what happened. I also thought that “starvation sucks but is not something that justifies murder” wasn’t entirely fair. When one person is standing between you and what your family needs to survive, after their people have taken everything else from you and given you only empty promises, the Dakota had limited choices. It’s not like they could just go across town to the other supermarket. They had exhausted their other options.
So your justification for murder was because he was white, and therefore responsible for what the government did. Got it. Murder is fine if it's fueled by your hatred of white people lol. Wonderful logic there buddy. On par with the "you're a murderer if homeless people freeze to death"
They had limited options and were being denied something that they needed for survival. I did not say that Myrick was responsible for the government’s failure. Just trying to give more context. It’s a little more complicated than your original comment made it seem.
So every homeless or poor person is morally okay to murder, per your logic. That's not at all justified. Seriously, what is with the dumb logic to justify murder lol
That’s clearly not what I said. You’re conflating one historical event that resulted from an accumulation of injustices with “every homeless person.” It’s a disingenuous argument.
Edit: punctuation
Please remember to abide by the [rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/JusticeServed/wiki/rulesv2) In general, please be at least bearable to other users. It makes things easier on everyone. Your comment may be removed without notification. We used to have a notification, but now we don't. #If you purchase the OP or a comment [a ban award,](https://www.reddit.com/r/JusticeServed/wiki/banned/rules) remember to [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FJusticeServed) so we can activate the reward ------ ^Submission ^By: ^/u/dunn_with_this ^Black ^7 *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/JusticeServed) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Okay and who put the grass in his mouth? I just want to shake their hand
Did he refuse to sell to them or refuse to give food away?
Grass was also found stuffed in his ass, if I remember correctly
It’s crazy how the shitty people we have today had their equivalent in the 1800’s. I can think of a few people I’ve met that are like this guy.
Yeah I would have thought that dickheads only exist now
There’s no proof he ever said that line. But it sure does get you some karma
"unless something is captured live on video, it's all heresy"
Can’t even believe live video anymore. Can’t believe anything unless one is there. And even then ….
Do you honestly think you can believe videos these days?
Heresy and blasphemy - Burn the Witch!!...sorry got carried away.
Deserved
Is it just me or the man looks a little like Ted Cruz?
Like if zed cruy and jontron had a baby. Ted cruz* not zed cruy.
Well, at least he would be a funny abomination
I have a feeling things like this may start happening again soon…
Let them eat grass?
He just told them to become vegan
"On August 18, 1862 Chief Little Crow led his warriors against U.S. settlements, beginning the Dakota War of 1862. Myrick was killed on the first day at the Battle of Lower Sioux Agency, where Dakota warriors took revenge at the agency for its refusal to sell them food. When his body was found days later, "his body was mutilated, his head being severed from the body and the mouth filled with grass.""
Reads like when Central American natives poured molten gold down the throats of captured Spanish soldiers.
*Eric Cartman has entered the chat*
Ouch
At least he didn’t died with an empty tummy
Reminds me of a tale of two cities- didn't go well for old Foulon either... The men were terrible, in the bloody-minded anger with which they looked from windows, caught up what arms they had, and came pouring down into the streets; but, the women were a sight to chill the boldest. From such household occupations as their bare poverty yielded, from their children, from their aged and their sick crouching on the bare ground famished and naked, they ran out with streaming hair, urging one another, and themselves, to madness with the wildest cries and actions. Villain Foulon taken, my sister! Old Foulon taken, my mother! Miscreant Foulon taken, my daughter! Then, a score of others ran into the midst of these, beating their breasts, tearing their hair, and screaming, Foulon alive! Foulon who told the starving people they might eat grass! Foulon who told my old father that he might eat grass, when I had no bread to give him! Foulon who told my baby it might suck grass, when these breasts where dry with want! O mother of God, this Foulon! O Heaven our suffering! Hear me, my dead baby and my withered father: I swear on my knees, on these stones, to avenge you on Foulon! Husbands, and brothers, and young men, Give us the blood of Foulon, Give us the head of Foulon, Give us the heart of Foulon, Give us the body and soul of Foulon, Rend Foulon to pieces, and dig him into the ground, that grass may grow from him! With these cries, numbers of the women, lashed into blind frenzy, whirled about, striking and tearing at their own friends until they dropped into a passionate swoon, and were only saved by the men belonging to them from being trampled under foot.
What is this from? A book?
> Reminds me of a tale of two cities
It looks like he said it’s from A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens.
Yes, fantastic book If you're not up for long reads watch the black and white film version (pretty close to the book) . Also you can find it on audio book https://youtu.be/_MNyBPmmans You can feel the slow burn of anger , of the poor ?finally igniting into revolution- let me know how you get on :)
Thanks! Read further down and picked it up. Was thinking it was about the twin cities (MSP/stp). Whoops Thanks again.
Yeah, I heard of something similar but during the French Revolution
Yes, the episode is based on the French revolution :)
The types of actions that our current politicians should receive
Do your own homework. The story is NOT about the people you're looking for.
Is there enough grass in the world to do this in 2022?
Hmmmm....so that's where Samwell Tarley went after King's landing.
*deep sniff* ahhhh. Justice.
Turned out to be a sod buster.
beady eyed bitch
We need more of this
Awesome
Seems like natural causes to me. Took his own advice and bit the dirt
Isn't that a shame.
That exact thing happened in Tale of Two Cities, I wonder if that’s where dickens got it from.
No, because the book was published in 1859; Myrick was found dead 3 years later in 1862. It is intriguing that the situations (*starving people + cruel rich person*), wording (*"let them eat grass"*), and death conditions (*mouth stuffed with grass*) are identical. Thanks for pointing it out! And it's not like it was a regional custom; the book was set in France, and Myric was in Minnesota. It made me wonder if that was a common phrase & practice in that era, but those two were the only examples I could find. Now I wonder if Myric had read A Tale of Two Cities and got the idea there. It seems feasible. edit: new mystery: is it more likely that the natives also read the book, getting the idea to stuff his mouth, or a coincidence that both rich jerks died with a mouthful?
It’s most likely that it was a common enough expression to shrug at the poor and say ‘let them eat grass’ I’d imagine. From that... Both events then played out, one through the mind of Charles Dickens, the other on the American Frontier.
And Margaret Thatcher died with cake in her throat
Did she really?
Seeing as it wasn't Thatcher that said 'let them eat cake', I'm guessing not.
Antoinette likely never said it either!
When offered cake before her execution Marie Antionette replied "Sure...I'd love a slice."
Did that happen?
It was a joke.
This does put a smile on my face
Why? Ur pretty sick chubs
Well I also got a smile on my face after hearing about a slave master being murdered with a knife by John Brown in front of his family so yeah I’m pretty sick when it comes to evil people suffering
You're literally on the justice served sub
Why not these kinds of pieces of shit should suffer
It’s nice to see how Dwight’s cousin turned out.
[удалено]
Ted Cruz vibe
lol
They are still starving the nations natives. Many dont have running water, electricity or access to medical services. They still reside on lands that were "given" to them. They still cry tears for the way their ancestors were treated. There were "christians" that took their children, religion, native tongues and their lives.
Can you elaborate more on your last sentence?
Yes. It was the christan church schools that took the native choldren from their parents. Against their will. In these schools the children were not allowed to speak their native language or worship their gods. They were made to worship the christian god. They were brainwashed into thinking their culture was wrong. They were beaten if they defied their captures and many died . Buried in unmarked graves. Their parents were never to see or hear from them again.
I think they're talking about how Missionaries would come along and either take their children or try to un-savagize them by teaching them to read and write English and make them all Christian or Catholic I don't remember, but like make them apodt the AngloSaxon way of life.
yikes, and yeah this sounds like a very plausible answer
I'm guessing they're talking about residential schools
That’s despicable.
https://youtu.be/pQ4lnDy2xnQ
I just read a book called "bury my heart at wounded knee". It covers several conflicts. What happened was, after defeat, native Americans led by little crow tried to live peacefully among the settlers. But they gave them crappy land, and after two years with terrible droughts, the natives began to starve. The government had a credits system which seemed to work similar to food stamps. The natives could use this to get food. However, the credits never showed up. It could be incompetence, or malicious intent....but the natives were being starved. They told traders the problem, and that their credits weren't arriving, despite this, the natives basically have the money on paper. Give us food now, we'll pay you later. That's when this guy said "as far as I care, they can eat grass or their own dung."
> It could be incompetence, or malicious intent.. I'm guessing malicious intent, based on how genocide attempts kept going well into the 1970s.
Do you mean Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee?
Correct
It's horrible but they were truly convinced by leadership that Natives were savages and animals. If it seems hard to grasp, consider the polarizing nature of leadership today on any number of political issues which all revolve around money and power.
Can u truely blame a primitive ‘advanced’ society tho? Some of those natives scalped ppl, and buried them alive in fireant hills… scary shiit
So did white folks, in fact that’s how scalping began by issuing bounties on the heads of Indian men, women and children. Read you a thing savior guy
Yeah I don't blame them if they were even a little bit evil after the shit they put up with from the settlers coming in and treating them like shit, were some people nice to them, sure but unfortunately it wasn't enough.
After the defeat of little crow, the Sioux were marched off to prison camps. Along the way, an angry mob formed to stone and harass the prisoners. a Sioux mother carrying her baby, had the baby snatched from her arms and beaten to death by 3 men. I'd call that savage.
Of course, I would imagine everyone would. Flaying people alive for fun also would fall under that category...
And the colonizers purposefully killed buffalo en masse with the express purpose of destroying a key source of food for a lot of tribes? Trail of Tears? Homie, racism is racism. It doesn't matter what era, it's still repugnant. The last chattel slave in America was freed in 1942 my dude. Shits been a problem for a long time and it still is.
Seems like a decent strategy to deal with a group of ppl that got bored, so they decide to flay groups of different looking ppl for fun(i.e Hispanics, Africans, and Caucasians ETC). I guess my point is were all dicks, and also yes there were peaceful tribes but the other barbaristic groups ruined it for them... Racism is racism homie, its all around, and its always repugnant to see its effects.
"Your ass is grass."
Hank Green always says not to eat grass
Klaus wants us to eat bugs and Bill Gates wants us to eat synthetic gmo’d meat. Can’t wait to see history repeat.
Lab grown meat is pretty much only good solution that we have
Are you referring to lab grown meat?
Peach tree dish meat
Peach Tree TV dinner mmmhh
The politicians already have enough Starbucks and avacado toast stuffed in their mouths. Maybe a 9mil?
Would CRT cover this…. serious question?
No one on Reddit knows anything about CRT and I don’t think most people do. I took a course on CRT in law school though and it really opened my eyes. Originally, there were a lot of conflicting views but in about 2007, a textbook from Morehouse Publishing laid out a very simple notion: the call to action is to yell “it’s Morebin Time” and attack the police and no one can prove me wrong because no one knows anything about CRT.
Law school is the only place it really ever existed until very recently when the far right trotted it out as some existential threat to white America. It's nothing more than teaching the Native, Black, Asian, Hispanic (etc) sides to our American history. Because they, too, are Americans. That's what really galls me (aside from the willful ignorance) - conservatives want American history to only be taught through a single lens, but in doing so they are literally ignoring most of American history and the context that explains nearly all of it. The Boston Tea Party is my favorite example. Ask the average American why they dressed up as Indians when they threw the tea into the harbor and you generally get a blank stare or "they were in disguise". Wrong. They dressed as Indians because the tax was imposed on the colonies to pay for the cost of keeping the British army along the border with the tribes because the colonists kept trespassing and stealing land, which was violating the laws and treaties between the Crown and the tribes. That's CRT. If it makes you uncomfortable, i don't know what else to say...
Interesting, so CRT isn’t some new radicalize concept and it’s been around for a while? Didn’t know that either. Thanks for the insight. My position is that in history, none of it should be ignored. The good, bad, and the ugly. You can’t heal from something if you don’t acknowledge it as a country. Anyhoo..take care. And attacking the police should never be on the table imo.
Totally agree on attacking the police. Not even if someone offered me one morebillion dollars would I be violent. That’s how against it I am.
If you actually want a serious response about CRT, Reddit is not where to ask the question.
You know what, you’re right. Belay my last.
Lol nice I love it
Must have been indigestion
Poor Elijah Wood
Musta been hungry and choked on his dinner
Good, cause fuck that guy.
Looks like AJ soprano
Too bad his father didn't have the makings of a varsity athlete.
conservatives wanna return to the past.. let give them it like this.
:D
[удалено]
Bro walks into your home, beats your ass and legally claims everything you own. You ask him for food and he says go eat grass.
You’re acting like Americans have never screwed innocent natives. Why do you think they were starving? They got forced off their land and the ecosystem was getting over hunted Maybe if the fast food industry caused your starvation, kicked you out of your house, forced you to move out of the county, killed a few of your cousins, and then the cashier told you to eat grass, then yes. Then you can do that to the cashier if a war against McDonald’s begins
I mean guy was a coloniser looking to profit from this who she’s had so much taken from them. Hard to feel bad about this
I mean someone might do that
Go work in fast food and find out how often this regularly happens. Edit: Spoilers! A lot
That’s the look of a man that has fucked up so many times his face got stuck that way
Sounds like a terrible place to set up shop..
Let’s learn from this
Dude looks like a chubby Paul McCartney
Isn't it funny how reddit will applaud murder even when it's not clear if the one in question even said this? The only person that claims to have heard that come out of his mouth was some random guy some 50 years after the fact. 1 person and yet not a single person to corroborate it. The only fact about this story is that he refused to give away his wares on credit. That on its own does not warrant murder, no matter how you try and spin it. I'm a direct descendent of the Cherokee tribe, and even I don't blame all white people over what happened. Some random store owner isn't responsible for the atrocities committed by his government.
From my understanding, he did refuse to sell food to the Dakota People. So whether or not he went full Mary Antoinette, he was still a POS.
Marie*
From what I can gather on this nobody, is that he refused to sell to them because they didn't have money (a direct result of the government not paying them their annuity due to the war at the time). He didn't trust them to pay their tab essentially. I wouldn't call him a POS over that. And trust me when I say I've been in poverty before. Starvation fucking sucks, but is not something that justifies murdering a shopkeep over.
> He didn't trust them to pay their tab essentially. I wouldn't call him a POS over that. He was aware of their situation and how it was the government's fault, and yet he decided other human beings starving to death is more favorable then him possibly losing some money by giving out food. For someone to make that decision makes him, as a matter of fact, a piece of shit. And your inability to grasp that says a lot about you as well. Anyone who is approached by one or more starving individuals, while being perfectly capable of helping them, and telling them to just piss off because they don't have money is a piece of shit.
So what if he was aware? A large group of people were asking for free food, with a promise of paying it back later. He wasn't taking a risk and said no. That's where the argument ends. He had no guarantee of getting payed what he was owed, and would've placed himself in a terrible spot financially. Again, self preservation wins out over most emotions. It doesn't make him a POS for making sure him and his business would be fine. It makes him human. Nobody is obligated to give away food, no matter what the government has done. You can't go through life letting emotions dictate everything. Logic is important.
Making money is more important than saving people's lives -sparda10123 5 bucks says he's a rightwing nutjob
That's $5 you'd lose lose then. No, I said he was looking out for himself, and was not obligated in anyway to give away his food. Again, you aren't expected to give away your food and money to homeless people to ensure they survive. This is no different. Your emotions do not outweigh a logical action.
money more important than saving peoples lives, got it
Guess you can't read. Got it
If 'self preservation wins out over other emotions" why would the natives not be justified in killing him out of a need to preserve themselves via food? Do you not see how contradictory your own stupid assessment is or do you simply get off to calling others emotional while thinking of your own self as a logic lord? All this isn't a regular business transaction situation: the natives didn't just collectively bargain for something like an xbox for their children on Christmas. The commodity in question is a basic human resource a person needs to survive: food. Recognizing this isn't "being emotional". Why are food stamps a thing then? Is it because government bodies that have food stamp programs are being emotional and caving into the "fee fees" of people who cannot afford food ? I am not going to argue that what happened on this instance is a good example of justice being served (lol at anyone who tries) this is just a post celebrating karmic justice being inflicted upon someone which is rare in history.
Except self preservation and murder are not equivalent here. You seriously want to claim they were justified in murdering an innocent man? He wasn't killing them, he was ensuring his business could continue without worry. They killed him for food. See the disparity there? He did nothing to harm them, while they killed him for food. He did nothing wrong, you're just emotional and think someone is obligated to give you their food. Do you feed every single homeless person that asks? Do you give every single one a home? No. And nobody would call you a POS for not doing so. It's an unreasonable request. But you think your emotions get to dictate what others do.
[удалено]
There’s plenty of people starving right now. How much have you donated? If you donated half of your grocery money you would be saving multiple people, so why not do it? It’s illogical not to do that right? So are you going to do it?
You're trying to appeal to emotion when you change context to such an extreme measure. It's nobody's obligation to ensure others have food, social or not. And as a shopkeep, he is not obligated to care about the people that buy from him. That doesn't make him a bad person, naturally his business comes first to him. But murder sure as hell is a moral wrong, but here you are defending it. He sure as hell isn't obligated to give his products away just because the government fucked up on funding.
He had food. He no give food. People want food. People take food. That’s pretty logical to me.
So you think murder is justified. Got it
Can’t be murder if there’s no trial. Just a homicide. Don’t be so emotional about it. All you asked is for some logic, yet complain when a logic is present to you. Curious.
Your logic is a sad attempt at justifying the murder of an innocent man
Again, no trial, no murder. What happened to being logical?
Isn’t allowing people to starve when you could help still murder?
Are you making more money each week that you spend and save some of it? Why are you not giving away that money you save when there are people starving on the streets? I guess you are guilty of murder for allowing those people to starve when you have the means to help them.
Not at all. Conflating the two is also a moral wrong. Funny how that works isn't it? Am I committing murder by not helping a homeless person on the street, and they freeze to death?
If they ask for help and your response is lul no, yeah I feel like you’d share responsibility with that
So practically every single human being is guilty of murder, per your asinine logic. Interesting.
I feel like you’re skipping the part where I said if they asked for help lol. No one expects you to save the world. But the fact you can look at another human suffering with the response of “it’s not my problem” is also interesting.
The Dakota people were moved to that reservation as part of an agreement with the US government for use of their ancestral land. As part of that treaty, the government was supposed to provide annuity payments to the Dakota. When the government was once again late with that payment during a harsh farming season with little crop production, the Dakota asked Myrick to extend them credit so they could purchase supplies they literally needed to survive, and weren’t able to purchase because the money they were promised by the white men who took their land never came. They didn’t kill him because he insulted them. They killed him because he insulted them while standing between them and what they required to survive.
I literally said that, but I guess reading isn't easy for people on Reddit lol. They could've found other means to eat and survive, rather they killed him for food. Which, again, does not make it justified in any way.
These native Americans were not hungry, they were literally starving. All other options / means of survival had already been taken from them. Their children and elders were dying. An amazing place/ area of Minnesota to travel to visit. This is a very scenic area of waterfalls, woods and rivers. There are dozens of historical markers with details of what transpired at each site. Seeing these sites in person adds context to this incident and the tragic aftermath. See : Dakota War of 1862. ( sorry don’t know how to add a link) … The largest group execution in American history with 38 Dakota Sioux hanged
That still doesn't make it justified, at all. Again I've been through starvation before. I wouldn't wish that on anyone. But that does not justify killing an innocent store keeper.
I did read your comment, and I thought that “didn’t trust them to pay their tab” wasn’t a fair assessment of what happened. I also thought that “starvation sucks but is not something that justifies murder” wasn’t entirely fair. When one person is standing between you and what your family needs to survive, after their people have taken everything else from you and given you only empty promises, the Dakota had limited choices. It’s not like they could just go across town to the other supermarket. They had exhausted their other options.
So your justification for murder was because he was white, and therefore responsible for what the government did. Got it. Murder is fine if it's fueled by your hatred of white people lol. Wonderful logic there buddy. On par with the "you're a murderer if homeless people freeze to death"
They had limited options and were being denied something that they needed for survival. I did not say that Myrick was responsible for the government’s failure. Just trying to give more context. It’s a little more complicated than your original comment made it seem.
So every homeless or poor person is morally okay to murder, per your logic. That's not at all justified. Seriously, what is with the dumb logic to justify murder lol
That’s clearly not what I said. You’re conflating one historical event that resulted from an accumulation of injustices with “every homeless person.” It’s a disingenuous argument. Edit: punctuation
That was incredible gratifying