Osceola was named Billy Powell at his birth in 1804 in the Upper Creek village of Talisi, which means "Old Town". The village site, now the city of Tallassee, Alabama, was located on the banks of the Tallapoosa River about 20 miles (32 km) upstream from Fort Toulouse where the Tallapoosa and the Coosa rivers meet to form the Alabama River. His mother was Polly Coppinger, a mixed-race Creek woman, and his father was most likely William Powell, a Scottish trader.
In 1814, after the Red Stick Muscogee Creeks were defeated by United States forces, Polly took Osceola and moved with other Muscogee refugees from Alabama to Florida, where they joined the Seminole. In adulthood, as part of the Seminole, Powell was given his name Osceola (/ˌɒsiːˈoʊlə/ or /ˌoʊseɪˈoʊlə/). This is an anglicized form of the Creek Vsse Yvholv (pronounced [asːi jahoːla]), a combination of vsse, the ceremonial black drink made from the yaupon holly, and yvholv, often translated "shouter" but referring specifically to the one who performs a special whoop at the Green Corn Ceremony or archaically to a tribal town officer responsible for offering the black drink.
In April 1818 during the First Seminole War, Osceola and his mother where living in Peter McQueen's village near the Econfina River, when it was attacked and destroyed by the Lower Creek allies of U.S. General Andrew Jackson that were led by William McIntosh. Many surviving Red Stick warriors and their families, including McQueen, retreated south into the Florida peninsula.
In 1821, the United States acquired Florida from Spain (see the Adams-Onis Treaty), and more European-American settlers started moving in, encroaching on the Seminoles' territory. After early military skirmishes and the signing of the 1823 Treaty of Moultrie Creek, by which the U.S. seized the northern Seminole lands, Osceola and his family moved with the Seminole deeper into the unpopulated wilds of central and southern Florida.
Through the 1820s and the turn of the decade, American settlers continued pressuring the US government to remove the Seminole from Florida to make way for their desired agricultural development. In 1832, a few Seminole chiefs signed the Treaty of Payne's Landing, by which they agreed to give up their Florida lands in exchange for lands west of the Mississippi River in Indian Territory. According to legend, Osceola stabbed the treaty with his knife.
Five of the most important Seminole chiefs, including Micanopy of the Alachua Seminole, did not agree to removal. In retaliation, the US Indian agent, Wiley Thompson, declared that those chiefs were deposed from their positions. As US relations with the Seminole deteriorated, Thompson forbade the sale of guns and ammunition to them. Osceola, a young warrior rising to prominence, resented this ban. He felt it equated the Seminole with slaves, who were forbidden by law to carry arms.
Thompson considered Osceola to be a friend and gave him a rifle. Osceola had a habit of barging into Thompson's office and shouting complaints at him. On one occasion Osceola quarreled with Thompson, who had the warrior locked up at Fort King for two nights until he agreed to be more respectful. In order to secure his release, Osceola agreed to sign the Treaty of Payne's Landing and to bring his followers into the fort. After his humiliating imprisonment, Osceola secretly prepared vengeance against Thompson.
On December 28, 1835, Osceola, with the same rifle Thompson gave him, killed the Indian agent. Osceola and his followers shot six others outside Fort King, while another group of Seminole ambushed and killed a column of US Army, more than 100 troops, who were marching from Fort Brooke to Fort King. Americans called this event the Dade Massacre. These nearly simultaneous attacks catalyzed the Second Seminole War with the United States.
In April 1836, Osceola led a band of warriors in an attempt to expel U.S. forces from Fort Cooper. The fortification was built on the west bank of Lake Holathikaha as an outpost for actions against the local Seminole population. Despite running low on food, the U.S. garrison had enough gunpowder and ammunition to keep the Seminoles from taking the fort before reinforcements arrived.
On October 21st, 1837, in what historian Thom Hatch called "one of the most disgraceful acts in U.S. military history", Osceola was captured after U.S. forces disingenuously agreed to meet under a white flag of truce. Osceola was arrested along with 81 of his followers. He died in prison a few months later, on January 30th, 1838.
-
🐻Link to all Hexbear comms
-
📀 Come listen to music and Watch movies with your fellow Hexbears nerd, in Cy.tube
-
🔥 Read and talk about a current topics in the News Megathread
-
⚔ Come talk in the New Weekly PoC thread
-
✨ Talk with fellow Trans comrades in the New Weekly Trans thread
-
👊 Share your gains and goals with your comrades in the New Weekly Improvement thread
-
🧡 Disabled comm megathread
reminders:
- 💚 You nerds can join specific comms to see posts about all sorts of topics
- 💙 Hexbear’s algorithm prioritizes comments over upbears
- 💜 Sorting by new you nerd
- 🌈 If you ever want to make your own megathread, you can reserve a spot here nerd
- 🐶 Join the unofficial Hexbear-adjacent Mastodon instance toots.matapacos.dog
Links To Resources (Aid and Theory):
Aid:
Theory:
Is there like any thread/community for meta issues right now?
I ask because I see that PM_ME_YOUR_FOUCAULTS got banned earlier today, which I wouldn't have noticed if I wasn't looking at the modlog for other reasons. I get that not every ban deserves a thread, but permabanning a mod with 10k comments seems significant?
Also the random idpol in the ban reason is bizarre, like they're bi and non-binary but once they're banned it's just cracker? lol
Basically PM_ME_YOUR_FOUCAULTS got into an argument on the modchat, and while it started off civil, it didn't really end that way. PM_ME_YOUR_FOUCAULTS might be unbanned if they self-crit, is generally what I'm hearing.
I've got some screenshots from the mod chat that basically show the whole situation, but I can't exactly get consent from the parties involved, so I'm redacting their names.
The modchat was discussing a comment that was reported, and AGAB terminology in general.
Around 20-30 messages went by, largely not touching on the issue of "he/hims", then:
And then there were about another ten messages, all talking about the messages screenshot-ted, but not really relevant to the argument. And then a reply:
From now on it's mostly just these two.
They both agree to disagree. But then they keep going.
The argument starts to go off the rails here, especially with those last two replies:
Another mod says this isn't a constructive argument. They don't seem to get a reply.
At this point other mods and admins start to step in, saying green is "basically concern trolling", and "You're literally arguing semantics.". It is at this point that purple leaves the mod chat. Green basically continues the argument with them for another few messages.
Yet more mods arrive, and agree that green was concern trolling, and ask for green to apologize. They refuse, saying:
Other mods say some more things.
Green does not like the things the other mods say.
At this point Green leaves the mod chat, and the remaining mods talk about what is to be done. Purple is going to be taking a relatively long break, and foucault got de-modded+perma'd. It might be changed to a temp ban so they can self-crit, but mods aren't exactly hopeful that'll happen.
One mod described this as "two users...self-destructing in one day". Other mods say that while Green's argument was technically correct, they still deserved the ban, especially considering previous history.
I left out some stuff, and tried to make it so you couldn't tell who was who, but it's kinda obvious.
Think of all this what you will, I didn't really get involved, and only heard about it after it all went down.
I don't recall anything about the user's background, but a recent struggle session was about dunk culture being toxic because of cis het white men, and that really felt like "everyone who does something I don't like is a cis het white man" style bioessentialism.
Not weighing in on whether they deserved to be called a cracker or not, I only saw one message from them given they are not the "green" or "purple" mods to my understanding.
I really hope the mods don't do a repeat of the "he/hims aren't beating the allegations, so to speak", my impression was that categorizing users based on their pronouns was understood to be reactionary. Like it was said in the screenshot people do not identify as pronouns, I do not identify as a "they/them" and I hope I don't need to tell people to not refer to me as a "they/them", use they/them pronouns obviously, but don't call me a "they". Is this that hard to understand that it keeps on being discussed? Do people actually like being called a "he/him" or a "she/her" etc? And if you don't want to assume something to call them because someone who has "he/him" pronouns might not want to be called a man etc. then just ask the specific user what they want to be called.
Personally I hope Purple is demodded and has to reapply after doing some self crit, I don't have any confidence in Purple* as a mod after seeing "to deny a pattern with users with a certain set of pronouns is to deny reality"
At that point get rid of pronouns and refer to everyone as comrade, STOP grouping people based on their pronouns for the love of god, IT IS REACTIONARY
So, "shut up about men being weird-assed misogynists, or two steps from predation, and accept them as comrades". Do you understand how close that is to demanding Black comrades just... Shut up about white microaggressions and embrace them?
Don't answer that, I don't have any confidence that you won't show your ass.
Please do not put words in my mouth, I will not do so for you, do you think that if there were not pronouns on the site, that mods would not be able to discern misogyny? What function do the pronouns serve when determining what is misogyny and what isn't misogyny?
It'd certainly make discerning targeted misogyny a lot harder as a first point. To me, the pronouns serve a very clarifying purpose when somebody shows their ass on a particular brainworm they may have. Beyond that, it opens the potential for deeper camaraderie between marginalized genders and neogenders.
Shit cis men should have no input on, frankly. It'd be like allowing a cracker to freely post in em_poc, which we recently pruned out a few no matter how well meaning they were, because that's not their space. If we suddenly prune out shit that's supposed to be keeping our trans comrades safe, we'd be no better than blahaj after a while.
I respectfully disagree with this, I think you cannot assume someone's gender identity based on their pronouns, If it is helpful to know people's gender identities then there should be a box next to the pronouns where people either disclose or choose not to disclose their gender identities. I don't disagree with your sentiment though.
I actually did run into this issue the last time the presumed-men on this forum were acting up and out of misogyny. I had assumed that it was men, turns out, it was a lot of he/him enbies. So I started going by the pronouns I saw instead.
Honestly? If it's possible for this lemmy fork to do that, I'd be all for it if only for the deeper clarification it could lend.
That's fair, I'm only coming at this from a place of not conflating pronouns and gender identity, pronouns are just what someone wants to be referred to as whether it is a binary pronoun, comrade, their username, or a neopronoun, when you start treating pronouns like they are a grouping akin to ethnicity, gender identity, etc, I think that starts to dip into reactionary thinking making a grouping based on something that is not a grouping, like my example with "the him/hims aren't beating the allegations"
And to clarify I was not trying to be antagonistic with my original comment, I think I was just frustrated because I brought this up during the previous struggle session and it wasn't directly addressed as a follow up and seeing these messages makes it seem like it wasn't even addressed at a mod chat level informally, I apologize if anything I said was rude or dismissive, that was not my intention.
Are the mod chatrooms of this website always this embarrassing?
no, I don't think so.
That is reassuring, I hope it is simply high tension from the stress of the holiday period
Thats probably what it was. People often explode on here after something happened IRL.
Same vibe I got as well
Firstly regarding green, if a cracker's (and yes, I'm using that term because if I don't see you in em_poc with ANY regularity, I've got my doubts as to people's bonafides NOT being crackers the way the demographics of the western internet are set up) got an issue with me? Come have that issue with me with your whole chest. Don't tiptoe around me like you ain't got no intestinal fortitude. If it's wanted for me to not break it down to a pronoun-based analysis, green coulda just fuckin asked me in PMs but fine-- I DON'T TRUST THE MEN ON THIS SITE. Ten toes down, my whole goddamn chest.
Cause y'know what, it is he/him pronouns-- what I didn't want to outright assume were men bc they could've just been enbies wearing he/him like the last time we had this discussion-- it was the men coming out of pocket with hella misogynistic shit; and now a couple days ago, basically predator-defending when we're literally almost done with Will to Change. Like, how the fuck are we having this book club on one side of the comm and then men that I see in that thread sometimes are still out here being fuckin weirdos?
I stand, ten toes down on it. Y'all ain't beating the allegations where I'm concerned without a LOT of work that I only see a couple of y'all tops doing.
So prove me wrong.
You are about to get a whole lot of replies proving you right lol
oh wait, this was some time ago and it seems like you maybe already did... This is what I get for touching grass!
We haven't done a race survey (lol) so I don't know why you would assume everyone here is white. Less than half of this site is cis, which is not at all close to the rest of the world/internet.
Why are you saying like a hypothetical when that's literally what Foucault was?
My interpretation of greens original argument was that using "he/hims" as a noun was unpleasant, and they would have preferred people said something like "people using he/him".
It wasn't directly related to the argument and self-destruction, so I didn't include it, but I don't really think he really had an issue with you specifically. There was a lot of escalation between that original comment and the end.
One of your messages was reported, and he said "Basically I think frauddog's heart is in the right place", and "But honestly what would the ideal phrasing be?" as to why it wasn't really worth getting you to change your language. But that was mostly about AGAB, the pronoun thing was half a message out of several.
Purple's response about the pronoun thing was about 20 hours after, and the rest of the argument was largely removed from the context of the original report.
I'm not exactly trying to defend green, but I also don't want to accidentally slander him by leaving stuff out.
Completely valid opinion, totally agree.
One of your screenshots has the other mod's name in question. You probably should blank out that name.
Damn your right. I'll fix that.
edit: Next time I ever have to do something like this, I should write something to blank out names automatically.
Foucalt said the words "clarify my concern" but also believes it wasn't concern trolling
So much of this could have been avoided
Removed by mod
Yeah I'd like some more justification for this, it doesn't really seem clear, seems like the offending acts occurred in private so users can't see what happened and judge for themselves. What was the harmful rhetoric they were using? Is doubling down the same as defending your choice of words? Who cares that his banner is a modlog action that seems perfectly in line with the shitposting vibe of this site? Displaying general debate pervert behavior also doesn't seem banworthy that describes like half the site.
I think they've paid their dues and contributed a lot to the site, users deserve some more concrete justification
Basically they were being really combative and refusing to de-escalate after stirring some shit and regularly escalated. It was a shitty move, just apologize and be done with it.
I'm always down for them to come back after they cool off and apologize
can you elaborate what you mean by this
Calling a long time user a cracker is weird when that's seemingly unrelated to the ban. I get it for wreckers and whatnot but when the person is kinda known it feels like some admin went down an idpol checklist and picked a relevant insult. Idk maybe it's just me
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
You can see who the mods are. Also, there tends to be alot of discussion regarding bans, so even though one may be responsible for meting out punishment, there is typically a consensus before that happens. You do not need to know which person pushes the button.
I do believe that some of the mods can get a little heated when providing the reasons for the ban and in this case the details are particularly vague and may seem a little out of pocket because it happened in a private chat.
I can assure you that this is an issue we reached a consensus on though. PM refused to reflect on his behavior and doubled down on his actions. PM made another comrade feel unsafe and unwelcome, telling them to "fuck off" when they were trying to express their concerns.
There's also a handful of other reasons I was personally uncomfortable with him being in a moderator position, but I'm not going to bring up the major reasons here for the privacy of other parties involved. He also just didn't pass the vibe check for me, and there's alot of small things that are ignorable on their own but added up to a few red flags.
PM needs to do some serious self-crit before I'm comfortable having him unbanned.
I mean I get telling someone to fuck off if they said I was "silencing victims of misogyny", that's a pretty seriously accusation to dump on someone.
I'm not gonna go to bat for PM when I'm only seeing bits and pieces of the conversation though, seems like they were overly committed to a dumb argument at the least, and I'm not really online enough to know who has a history of debatebro-ing and who doesn't.
Thank you for this post. Seeing such a long-time member and moderator get banned without more in-depth reasoning seriously eroded my faith in HB's moderation, but you have restored that faith.