Does anyone consider what we did to the Native Americans and/or the Philippinos genocidal acts?  And if so, why do our school texts virtually ignore these actions, whereas in countries like Germany and Cambodia, their respective holocausts are a major part of their schools' curriculum.

 

 

 

 

edit by Robert Pence: fixed typo in title

I can't comment on the Phillippinos but I do recommend Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States for a much better American History lesson than any of the white-washed, feel-good stuff they teach you in school.  While I personally think what was done to the Native Americans is one of the blackest eyes in our country's history, there are plenty of other examples where that came from; the book is a great starting point to what really and actually happened, and why, throughout history.  The obvious reason these things are glossed over and whitewashed is because it makes people uncomfortable to think of the good old US of A as having done things wrong.

Here we go......

 

What the Europeans did to the Native Americans is absolutely genocidal. I dont think it has as much to do with the comfort level of talking about it but more to the point that it would make the great and wonderful, blonde hair blue eye english looking bad, and not like the saviors and model humans that textbooks make them up to be. If you ignore it for long enough, the idea is that it will go away.

Why is there almost no black history included in U.S. history textbooks either? Besides the few pages on Martin Luther King or Rosa Parks? Instead I had to take 2 African American history classes in college just to touch the surface of black history in America.

I don't feel knowledgeable enough to say anything about the phillipines, but as far as our treatment of native americans, I'm not sure I'd call it genocide specifically. Theft on a grand scale, with occasional acts of genocide seems more accurate. We were more interested in taking their land, and keeping them under control than actually killing them. If keeping them under control required killing some of them, so be it, but that wasn't specifically the goal like the holocaust.

 

I think that our treatment of Native Americans is just one of many shameful chapters in our history, but I don't know why it gets so little attention.

Because there is nothing today's generation can do about it other than make sure it doesn't happen again.  I think we make up for the faults of our ancestors by our actions today.  That's why slavery is non-existant here, and we no longer butcher Indians, well, except for Cleveland Indians.

^Not sure I follow, Dan.  German kids are ingrained with stories and lessons of the holocaust, even though they obviously can't change the past.  Why is Germany more insistent on teaching its schoolchildren what they did but not America

I also agree that our schools don't go in depth about the history of slavery, but I would say it's covered a lot more in-depth than anything related to what we did to Native Americans.  I mean, I nearly flunked history but I remember covering dred scott, desegretation of schools, rosa parks, MLK, etc.  All we get about the indians is this false crap at Thanksgiving about the feast.

Before indulging in all of this self-flagellation from the collective guilt of “genocide,” let’s not forget that so-called “Native” Americans (technically, most of us, assuming we were born here, are indeed native Americans) had their origins elsewhere (and treated each other with the same degree of brutality--if not worse--that our European ancestors are alleged to have done)—probably Asia, arriving by way of what is now the Bering Strait, according to historians. Also, let’s look at the historical context. It’s virtually impossible to fairly compare 20th/21st century thought with what happened five-hundred years ago. There were centuries of enlightened (though in some cases not so enlightened) thinking between then and now that produced the sort of human freedoms we now accept—notably the anti-slavery movement (though many non-Western nations still haven’t exactly gotten on board!). Cultures change gradually over time. Let’s just accept that and move on and stop with the national guilt trip.

I know absolutely nothing about the Filipino - American War.

Before indulging in all of this self-flagellation from the collective guilt of “genocide,” let’s not forget that so-called “Native” Americans (technically, most of us, assuming we were born here, are indeed native Americans) had their origins elsewhere (and treated each other with the same degree of brutality--if not worse--that our European ancestors are alleged to have done)—probably Asia, arriving by way of what is now the Bering Strait, according to historians. Also, let’s look at the historical context. It’s virtually impossible to fairly compare 20th/21st century thought with what happened five-hundred years ago. There were centuries of enlightened (though in some cases not so enlightened) thinking between then and now that produced the sort of human freedoms we now accept—notably the anti-slavery movement (though many non-Western nations still haven’t exactly gotten on board!). Cultures change gradually over time. Let’s just accept that and move on and stop with the national guilt trip.

 

I personally don't think there should be a guilt trip.  But I do think we should learn about them more, just like we learn about other ancient genocides, wars, etc.  I think schools are too afraid that it would cause people to have a guilt trip.

I've always felt we ignore the Filipino massacres due to some kind of American guilt.  We weren't yet Americans when the Europeans slaughtered the Indians, but considering the Filipino-American War occurred at the turn of the 20th century, then that was "us" without any question. 

 

Hell, some of our great great grandparents were probably around then.  I know one of mine fought in the related Spanish-American war

Because there is nothing today's generation can do about it other than make sure it doesn't happen again.

 

That's why it needs more coverage, particularly the politics behind it. Those who ignore history are destined to repeat it.

 

So you are all for the State of Israel for what was done to the Jews? 

So are you for reparations payments for all ancestors of slaves?

I don't know what school's you went to C-Dawg but I got a fair share of diverse American history in my school system growing up. I will give you the Phillipine-American conflict, that one I hadn't heard of but as far as the others than I may not be a scholar in each of those areas I certainly am aware and respect them.

 

In my public high school, we spent a lot of time on Europe, the Far East, Central America, and US History, but little to no time on the Middle East, Africa, South America, and Australia.  And in regards to the US, what we learned about the Indians was basically portrayed in the light of "winning a game" to get the land we wanted.  We learned nothing about the Filipino-American War.  Also, we didn't learn about anything beyond World War II (not even the Korean War) because the textbooks we used were printed in the 1950s.

So are you for reparations payments for all ancestors of slaves?

 

No, I'd say they were better off for being here.  Reparations enough for past crimes committed by previous generations. 

 

To keep it in perspective, I've seen estimates of ~ 50,000 American Indians killed between 1775 and 1890.  Certainly not on the scale of the 6 million jews killed by the Germans.

Before indulging in all of this self-flagellation from the collective guilt of “genocide,” let’s not forget that so-called “Native” Americans (technically, most of us, assuming we were born here, are indeed native Americans) had their origins elsewhere (and treated each other with the same degree of brutality--if not worse--that our European ancestors are alleged to have done)—probably Asia, arriving by way of what is now the Bering Strait, according to historians. Also, let’s look at the historical context. It’s virtually impossible to fairly compare 20th/21st century thought with what happened five-hundred years ago. There were centuries of enlightened (though in some cases not so enlightened) thinking between then and now that produced the sort of human freedoms we now accept—notably the anti-slavery movement (though many non-Western nations still haven’t exactly gotten on board!). Cultures change gradually over time. Let’s just accept that and move on and stop with the national guilt trip.

 

The Native Americans in question did not commit genocide on a pre-existing population, though they did slaughter a whole bucha megafauna (there: I've worked the word "megafauna" into a UO thread. My work here is done), but I would hardly compare land sloths and saber tooth tigers to human beings, and I doubt the earliest humans in this hemisphere were motivated by a sense of Eastern Hemispheric supremacy or something as silly as manifest destiny.

 

That said, it's only page 1 of this thread, and we've already flirted with Hitler and Israel. Let's keep this conversation civil (if at all possible), or face the wrath of the designated Urbanbar Moderator.

 

Oh, wait. That's me.

Dang ... I don't know what schools are like in Ohio, but growing up in Florida, we talked about Native Americans all the time. It was a huge part of our history cirriculum.

 

I think there are several reasons we don't use "genocide" to describe the decline of Native Americans.

 

- Disease was far and away the largest culprit. A lack of immunity to European diseases wiped out up to 90% of the populations of certain tribes. Particularly in South America, explorers often found decimated civilizations that had fallen appart years before the first European settlers b/c the diseases travel faster

 

- The worst attrocities occured before "America" existed as a country. Obvious exceptions abound, but the worst of the worst was done by Spaniards, British, French, and yes ... other Indian tribes.

 

- The American attrocities were largly against the great plains tribes. Since America was actually at war with these tribes, I think that's dulled some of the potential cries of "genocide." It was armed conflict against nations that considered themselves sovereigns.

 

I think the most obvious example of American abuses against Indians was what we did to the Cherokee. Unlike the Plains Indians, the Cherokee wanted to become Americans, and had no interest in armed conflict against the US. They bought land, started farming, and generally wanted to become citizens. But then Andrew Jackson shipped them off to Oklahoma because politicians in GA, NC, and TN wanted their land. Consequently, I think that's why the "Trail of tears" gets by far the most focus in the history texts. 

 

 

 

 

 

Short answer to the original question:  Yes.  If not, where did they go?  I mean the tribes in North America.  Like most here, I'm not up on the Phillipine conflict and can't really assess it.

 

I'm not sure we can write off what was done just because a state of war existed between the US or colonial powers and the natives.  Why did that state of war exist?  Not because anyone was invading western Europe.  And to the extent disease was the culprit, keep in mind that this was well known to Europeans by the time the North American tribes were involved, and there was at that time no Geneva Convention or anything like it.  Biological warfare was considered OK.  Blankets tainted with smallpox were essentially WMD, and were sometimes employed against eastern tribes.

Okay everyone,  on the count of three, a little self-flagellation to pay for the sins of your ancestors.

Or maybe just a moment of introspection.

Short answer to the original question:  Yes.  If not, where did they go?  I mean the tribes in North America.  Like most here, I'm not up on the Phillipine conflict and can't really assess it.

 

I'm not sure we can write off what was done just because a state of war existed between the US or colonial powers and the natives.  Why did that state of war exist?  Not because anyone was invading western Europe.  And to the extent disease was the culprit, keep in mind that this was well known to Europeans by the time the North American tribes were involved, and there was at that time no Geneva Convention or anything like it.  Biological warfare was considered OK.  Blankets tainted with smallpox were essentially WMD, and were sometimes employed against eastern tribes.

 

Let’s just say for the sake of argument that what we did was genocide. What can we do about it now? Yes, it should be taught in schools. But unfortunately the schools (particularly in history and other liberal arts faculties) have become, by and large, cesspools of political correctness in which “educators,” –propelled by the most extreme type of partisanship—propagandize students with revisionist cultural history, transforming America into the Evil Empire, not the beacon of freedom it has--for the most part--been considered to be for generations. Until this topic can be taught without the influence—and taken out of the hands of--wingnuts who demonize America for being America, the issue will continue to be too controversial to regularly be part of a national curriculum.

 

Recommended reading:

 

The USA never engaged in genocide.  Genocide is a specific intent to destroy a "people" whether defined by national origin, ethnicity, religion or race.  What Hitler did to the Jews was genocide.  What happened in Rwanda was genocide.  What is going on in Darfur is genocide.  What Iran/Hamas/Al-Queda wants to do to Isreal would be genocide.  What some 'real' Americans want to do to Arabs would be genocide. 

 

Killing for the purpose of controlling the land and/or the government and/or people is not genocide.

 

Some scholars would argue that we wiped out entire and distinct native tribes.  I see their argument but the intent does not line up with genocide.  The colonists wanted the lands, not the extinction of a people.

 

 

 

 

First of all, there were fewer people here in what is now The United States when English colonization began than were killed in the WWII Holocaust.  Specifically, estimates range as low as just 2 million in an area now home to 300 million. 

 

Second, the disease thing went both ways, since tobacco is native to North America and has been responsible for the insidious deaths of hundreds of millions of people, whereas Europeans only directly killed perhaps 50,000 Indians.  Even more if you consider corn syrup -- corn is of course native to the Americas. 

 

The native population of the Spanish areas was much, much higher.  As many as 30 million natives lived in what is now called Mexico, which is why a huge percentage of modern-day Mexicans are still 100% native whereas American Indians are extremely obscure (although all kinds of people, to get attention, claim that they're 1/8 Cherokee or whatever).   

 

American Indians were often decimated by disease just a decade before pioneers pushed west. The journals of Lewis & Clark detail recently abandoned villages along the Missouri River. Considering how close they came to getting zapped by the folks they did encounter, there's basically no way they could have made the trip a decade earlier, because a lot of the native groups were totally nuts and couldn't be reasoned with. 

 

Personally, starting with the Northwest Territory, it would have been great if they had given entire counties to native groups instead of pushing them out to the plains and then onto reservations.  Also the tree-hugger in me wishes they had left county-sized wilderness areas in these states, since even the surviving old growth forests don't accurately resemble what was originally here.  But Ohio, specifically, was sold off to repay the revolutionary war debt and was settled very, very quickly.  There was basically nothing in the state in 1790 and by 1810 all kinds of stuff was going on.   

The USA never engaged in genocide. Genocide is a specific intent to destroy a "people" whether defined by national origin, ethnicity, religion or race. What Hitler did to the Jews was genocide. What happened in Rwanda was genocide. What is going on in Darfur is genocide. What Iran/Hamas/Al-Queda wants to do to Isreal would be genocide. What some 'real' Americans want to do to Arabs would be genocide.

 

Killing for the purpose of controlling the land and/or the government and/or people is not genocide.

 

Some scholars would argue that we wiped out entire and distinct native tribes. I see their argument but the intent does not line up with genocide. The colonists wanted the lands, not the extinction of a people.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_Destiny

and lets not get started on the Caribbean.  PR should be a state!

  What some 'real' Americans want to do to Arabs would be genocide. 

 

Huh!?!?? kindly elaborate.

First of all, there were fewer people here in what is now The United States when English colonization began than were killed in the WWII Holocaust.  Specifically, estimates range as low as just 2 million in an area now home to 300 million. 

 

Second, the disease thing went both ways, since tobacco is native to North America and has been responsible for the insidious deaths of hundreds of millions of people, whereas Europeans only directly killed perhaps 50,000 Indians.  Even more if you consider corn syrup -- corn is of course native to the Americas. 

 

so, because we took a native plant and turned it into something else they committed genocide against Europeans?

 

]The native population of the Spanish areas was much, much higher.  As many as 30 million natives lived in what is now called Mexico, which is why a huge percentage of modern-day Mexicans are still 100% native whereas American Indians are extremely obscure (although all kinds of people, to get attention, claim that they're 1/8 Cherokee or whatever).   

 

American Indians were often decimated by disease just a decade before pioneers pushed west. The journals of Lewis & Clark detail recently abandoned villages along the Missouri River. Considering how close they came to getting zapped by the folks they did encounter, there's basically no way they could have made the trip a decade earlier, because a lot of the native groups were totally nuts and couldn't be reasoned with. 

 

yeah, i can see that conversation:

L&C: Hello Native Person. We're out surveying the land that the United States bought from France.

Indian: Who bought what land from whom?

L&C: well, the United States of course.  We own everything here.

Indian: Huh, see...that's weird. I'm pretty sure that my people have been here for a long time.

L&C: well, that may be...but we paid France for the property.

Indian: When did we give it to France?

L&C: well, no...see, France claimed it.

Indian: So, if i claimed your pocket watch it would be mine to give away?

L&C: No. That's not how this works, you're being totally unreasonable.

 

Second, the disease thing went both ways, since tobacco is native to North America and has been responsible for the insidious deaths of hundreds of millions of people, whereas Europeans only directly killed perhaps 50,000 Indians.  Even more if you consider corn syrup -- corn is of course native to the Americas. 

 

No. Tell me you didn't just blame Native Americans for making us smoke and get fat. Please tell me I'm reading that wrong.

You could jump to the conclusion that he's saying that. However, you could just see it for what it is that both sides introduced things to the other, largely inadvertently that had dire consequences over time. 

You could jump to the conclusion that he's saying that. However, you could just see it for what it is that both sides introduced things to the other, largely inadvertently that had dire consequences over time.

i don't recall any blankets with high-fructose corn syrup being given to the whites.

>Tell me you didn't just blame Native Americans for making us smoke and get fat.

 

I said it to make a point that blaming whites for inadvertently spreading communicable diseases is ridiculous, especially considering African slaves came to North America for the first time around 1620, so they would be equally to blame for spreading diseases unique to Africa.  Also I believe marijuana is native to the New World, although I'm not a marijuana expert and am writing this at work so I'm not going to waste time looking it up. 

The diseases spread were unique to Europeans--generations of close proximity to livestock and congested, unsanitary urban living made the average European setting foot on western soil a walking dirty bomb.

 

Also, Marijuana is native to China. I learned that from this cool promo for a TV show:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfiaC-2K1LM

>Tell me you didn't just blame Native Americans for making us smoke and get fat.

 

I said it to make a point that blaming whites for inadvertently spreading communicable diseases is ridiculous, especially considering African slaves came to North America for the first time around 1620, so they would be equally to blame for spreading diseases unique to Africa. Also I believe marijuana is native to the New World, although I'm not a marijuana expert and am writing this at work so I'm not going to waste time looking it up.  

 

To the degree that it was unintentional it was simply a tragic accident.  But Europeans, once they realized what was happening, were happy to speed it along with things like the afformentioned infected blankets.  Blaming Africans for bringing African diseases?  I'm not much for the "white guilt" trip thing, but really?  I can't imagine how one could reasonably consider blaming them for any pathogen spreading.  Anything brought from Africa to America is pretty obviously the fault of the Europeans.

 

I think it's pretty inarguable that what European colonists did to Native Americans was genocide by modern standards.  But we also have to consider that we are using 21st Century standards to judge the standards of earlier civilizations.  Genocide by whatever term was just an accepted fact of how societies interacted till very recently.  If you need some land, food, whatever, just take it from someone weaker.  Kill all the men, make all the women your "wives".  Or just kill 'em all!  I doubt that there is a patch of dirt on this planet that hasn't known genocide, and probably no group of people larger than a tribe that hasn't been both a victim and a perpetrator at some point.

 

BTW, those diseases weren't unique to Europe. They would have been pervasive throughout all Eurasia and North Africa as well.  That area was all connected through trade routes, and most livestock, crops, and diseases spread along the breadth of that area fairly easily.

^Suffice it to say, the diseases were a product of a way of life drastically different from that of the first Americans.

 

    To add to what Jake said, the encounters with the natives make interesting stories but they just don't add up to much. Ohio was mostly empty in 1790, and developed fairly quickly. I recall a story that in 1815 some natives came to Cincinnati, and most settlers at that time had never seen an Indian before! The Indian battles in Ohio and Indiana - Harmar's defeat, the Battle of Fallen Timbers - involved just hundreds of people, not thousands. We say that the Europeans pushed the Indians off of their land, but more realistically the Europeans moved into mostly empty land with some small resistance from the natives.

 

    Atrocities were particularly gory on both sides, though.

 

    A good book on stories from the 1790's is The Frontiersmen.

 

 

 

I can't comment on the Phillippinos but I do recommend Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States for a much better American History lesson than any of the white-washed, feel-good stuff they teach you in school.  While I personally think what was done to the Native Americans is one of the blackest eyes in our country's history, there are plenty of other examples where that came from; the book is a great starting point to what really and actually happened, and why, throughout history.  The obvious reason these things are glossed over and whitewashed is because it makes people uncomfortable to think of the good old US of A as having done things wrong.

 

 

I'll have to check that out. Thank you for the recommendation. It sounds really good.

 

A good book on stories from the 1790's is The Frontiersmen.

 

I second that recommendation.

And I'll go ahead and recommend "Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies" by Jared Diamond.

'Second, the disease thing went both ways, since tobacco is native to North America and has been responsible for the insidious deaths of hundreds of millions of people, whereas Europeans only directly killed perhaps 50,000 Indians.  Even more if you consider corn syrup -- corn is of course native to the Americas."

 

.....wow

^So how do you surmise that diseases from various parts of the world could have been contained, especially when people didn't know they were spreading them?  It's inevitable that these two worlds would have eventually made contact with each other. Let's hear exactly how you would have done it. 

 

This discussion needs to be broken down, at the very least, into these kinds of categories:

 

a) policy of English, French, Portuguese, and Spanish governments up until 1776

b) the actions of individual explorers and colonists up until 1776

c) policy and actions of the United States government since 1776

 

Discussing it in terms of some perfect arcing narrative is like blaming slavery on the US Government when it began at Jamestown around 1620, 150 years before the US declared independence.  Slavery existed in the English colonies for a longer period of time than it did after the organization of the United States. It was in the Spanish New World from the very beginning, from the early 1500's onward. Slavery no doubt would have eventually arrived in the English colonies, but it was accelerated when a single Spanish slave ship was blown off course by a hurricane.  The only way to go back to Spain was to sail up our coastline, and when they stopped in Jamestown, they traded some slaves for supplies.   

 

If you go to the maritime museum in Barcelona, they have a slave galley on display that was built in Barcelona in the 1500's (amazingly, in the very 500+ year-old building in which it is now displayed).  Imagine the uproar if something like that happened here. 

 

The thing about Europe is seeing the gold statues and decorations on public display in the capitals, knowing that it came at the expense of lives somewhere, in the case of Madrid knowing that that the gold was mined by slaves in Central and South America. 

Maybe people didn't know they were spreading disease in the 1500s, but by the revolutionary era I don't think it was quite so unclear.  I had thought the intentional spreading of smallpox through dirty linens in the northeastern US was accepted historical fact.  However, I can't recall where I got that and I can't cite anything at present to back it up.

^^The case can be made that the spread of disease was accidental, and that a lack of understanding of germ theory likely advanced the spread. However, your whole corn syrup/tobacco argument blows that case off its own legs.

 

My take is that the Europeans arrived in the west with several overwhelming advantages--resistance to disease, written language, highly developed agricultural skills, mastery of weapons and tool technology--and the sum of those advantages resulted in de facto genocide. Is intent 9/10ths of genocide, too? Perhaps. But the divine aspect of the Europeans' charge--Manifest Destiny--tied up any and every moral loose end to the very, very undesirable effects of their presence.

yaaay!! Let's hear it for Manifest Destiny! :clap:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTWB_ByQD4w&hl=en&fs=1

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1088/did-whites-ever-give-native-americans-blankets-infected-with-smallpox

 

http://academic.udayton.edu/health/syllabi/bioterrorism/00intro02.htm

 

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/smallpox1.html

 

http://biochem118.stanford.edu/Papers/Simone_Brutlag/Amherst%20&%20Smallpox.pdf

^^The case can be made that the spread of disease was accidental, and that a lack of understanding of germ theory likely advanced the spread. However, your whole corn syrup/tobacco argument blows that case off its own legs.

 

My take is that the Europeans arrived in the west with several overwhelming advantages--resistance to disease, written language, highly developed agricultural skills, mastery of weapons and tool technology--and the sum of those advantages resulted in de facto genocide. Is intent 9/10ths of genocide, too? Perhaps. But the divine aspect of the Europeans' charge--Manifest Destiny--tied up any and every moral loose end to the very, very undesirable effects of their presence.

 

I know some people don't like the idea of revisionist history ( what history isn't revisionist?) but whether or not the intent was wrapped in religious context or whatever doesn't really change the outcome.  it seems to me that the intent was there.  We know better than them, we need to take this from them.  We'll kill them if we need to in order to spread out and control this country.

 

Aren't many genocides wrapped in religious context?

"The Maker Works in Mysterious Ways" is a wonderfully-soothing balm.

I snapped this from a youtube discussion of the Deal sisters:

 

 

We don't really see any bad representations of the native population anymore, outside perhaps team mascots, and it's usually humorous when people pipe up and claim to be 1/41th Cherokee or whatever.  It might be true, but people do it to sound more impressive. 

 

The sisters:

Does anyone consider what we did to the Native Americans and/or the Philippinos genocidal acts?  And if so, why do our school texts virtually ignore these actions, whereas in countries like Germany and Cambodia, their respective holocausts are a major part of their schools' curriculum.

 

 

 

 

edit by Robert Pence: fixed typo in title

 

To be 100% fair:

 

It's shameful that Cambodians need to apologize for their actions when the French should take full responsibility for what happened in SE Asia in the mid-to-late 20th century. It's no coincidence that Thailand, that managed to steer clear of French ownership, is now light years ahead economically and socially than its formerly colonized neighbors, even with their current political turmoil. The French turned Cambodian on Cambodian just like they turned Vietmanese on Vietnamese and then joined the underinformed world at the time in blaming the Soviets, Chinese and Americans for "creating" that mess. I bet there isn't a history book in Paris that teaches the true history of French ownership in SE Asia.

 

Germany's history littered with colonized occupations. If we consider what happened in the Phillipines as "genocide", then one should look at how Germany treated native peoples in their occupied territories in Africa. Hopefully you already know, it's not pretty, at all. Do the German history books own up to these "sins"? Or do things only matter when they happen on the mother continent?

 

 

The diseases spread were unique to Europeans--generations of close proximity to livestock and congested, unsanitary urban living made the average European setting foot on western soil a walking dirty bomb.

 

Also, Marijuana is native to China. I learned that from this cool promo for a TV show:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfiaC-2K1LM

 

This is completely off topic but I love that show "Weeds".