Wanted to let you in on a conversation at work. My friend does a NCAA tournament bracket based on which mascot would win in a street fight. At two separate points, there was a battle taking place between Viking and Indian. We discussed for a while (along with my Dad) and decided the Indian gets the advantage due to quickness and strategy.
This morning however, in looking over the bracket we noticed that my friend had the Seminoles (indian) defeating the Volunteers (think Davy Crockett.) This then became the subject of much controversy. My friends point was that the volunteer would get one shot before he was rushed by the resliant seminole ("you know how long it takes to load a musket?" he said. I told him at that point that he sounded like Dwight K Schrute.) I didn't necessarily disagree with that, but I had one politically incorrect point to make.
Unlike alot of the matchups, (who has ever seen a Blue Devil, let alone judge their fighting skills) we have historical background to this battle. Remember, the volunteers (basciallly fronteirsmen) have already defeated the indians. Sure, it may not have been them per sey but it's the prinicipal of it. I thought this arguement was hilarious but it only angered my friend. I also reminded him that the volunteer not only has his musket-loading rifle but he also carries his "white man diseases" and alcohol. Therefore, he could barter his way to a victory as well.
Not the most sensative of arguments, but I believe it works.
No comments:
Post a Comment