RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events In U.S. Name Count, Garcias Are Catching Up With Joneses

My concern is that all the mechanisms that insured assimilation are being destroyed.

And that anyone who dares to call for the past mechanisms that insure assimilation (greater pressure to learn english, not allowing spanish to become an official second language, a reduction of immigration to allow assimilation of the massive wave already here)are branded as "Xenophobes" and "racist".

No, we just want America to remain America. And sovereign. If you want "multiculturalism", move to former Yugoslavia or Iraq. You might change your mind.

I don't know how to respond to that because I'm either laughing or shaking my head too much to be able to.



Ultimately it's pointless to respond as I've made my points and Wonder Boy has made his all too abundantly clear. It's a shame he's going to spend the rest of his life miserable as fuck. Needlessly so. But that's the statistical reality. He's going to believe he's being invaded and it's only going to be reinforced when 1/4 of the population is Hispanic in 2050. Hopefully he'll make his peace and acceptance with Hispanics by then.

P.S., I can't imagine German radio during the time I mention because German immigration occurred between 1840-1920 and radio programs only became widespread in the 1920s and 1930s.

So you can quote my response to him as well then.

By assimilate you mean become a subclass living with racism and abuse for many years. Having their native culture shunned and being forced to immitate the society of the invaders.


You would make a good Nazi. Justifying a foreign people invading "lesser" peoples to make them civilized. The Indians had their own culture, they had there own way of life. You can't make a judgement call on how they lived because quite frankly they were healthier than the Europeans at the time. Europeans lived amongst animal shit and never bathed. They were literally dripping with disease. The Indians lived more agrarian lives. I can assume from your statements that native New Yorkers are justified in slaughtering and imprisoning farmers from upstate New York because they're less advanced?
True there were attacks from Indians, but the Europeans settlers started it. They were greeted with friendship and then turned on the Indians when they needed more land.


Yes, they had wars before the settlers showed up. So did the Europeans. Does that justify an invasion of Europe? It seems death and invasion is fine by you when white people are the ones doing it.


so? does that mean they were worthy of death? It's arguments where you claim one race is inferior to another that get you labeled a racist. The fact is this was their land. Who cares how they lived on it? Who cares if they had oral traditions and valued living in harmony with nature over how Europeans lived? Europeans were more advanced because of multiculturalism. They had many different cultures trading ideas and goods with each other. That advances a society.
It's funny because on one thread you argue about how mexican immigration is bad because foreigners are coming in and undermining the native culture. Here you support flat out invasions and forcibly taking land because whites did it.




Inquisition, Crusades, Black Death, many many many wars.
Also human sacrifice was in the Aztek culture, not the North American Indians.


so? everyone had a shorter life expectancy back then. Does the length of one's life determine how well and free they can live?


I don't think anyone has ever called it a utopia, but it was their lives on their land. And they were pretty welcoming to the settlers. They could have lived in peace.


wow. that's the dumbest argument i think you've ever used. The whole world's population then was less than a billion (a number not reached until the 1800's) now it's 6.5 billion. China and India have the largest populations of any countries, by your logic they must be the iconic benevolent society for allowing so many people to be born.
There were people here who were killed. Some accidentally through diseases, and many purposefully through invasion and slaughter. Just because they've had a population rebound doesn't justify anything. If you had 2 kids and I killed one of them but you had 2 more, does that make me not a killer?



So? You make horribly immoral points. There are rich Jewish families, does that mean the holocaust was actually a good thing?


no you don't. you've said repeatedly that you want assimilation. so therefore you enjoy meeting people who have different colored skin but are subservient to you and your cultural views.


I think you create that yourself. I've known many people of different ethnic persuasions and get on fine with them because I treat them like people and not invaders. I can see you antagonizing others with little passive aggressive comments that get them riled up and defensive.




the rest of the post is just more of your bile. I think I will leave you to stew in your own bile because I don't have enough meanness in me to blah blah blah.

BINGO!

If I could sum Wonder Boy 's views up in one sentence. There it is.

These are some German words and expressions are used constantly in English. Angst, kindergarten, gesundheit, kaputt, sauerkraut, blitz, blitzkrieg, bratwurst, cobalt, dachshund, delicatessen, ersatz, frankfurter and wiener (named for Frankfurt and Vienna, respectively), glockenspiel, hinterland, infobahn (for “information highway”), kaffeeklatsch, pilsner (glass, beer), pretzel, quartz, rucksack, schnaps (any hard liquor), schuss (skiing), spritzer, (apple) strudel, verboten, waltz, and wanderlust. And from Low German: brake, dote, tackle, Zeitgeist. Or words used in special areas, such as gestalt in psychology or loess in geology. And of course hamburger.

It must drive you insane knowing the German immigration wave caused you to lose your sovereignty. Every time you're in Burger King, you must feel the rage of having to use German in order to order something to eat!

Only in a perfect world. There are more clueless hicks in Upstate NY then the entire South.

well, i'm kind of against the whole murder and violence thing. it's just not healthy for bunnies and kittens and other living things.

Hell, it goes further than that. English is a derivative of German. Here's English- German for many common words....

Arm- Arm
Hand- Hand
Foot- Fuss
Brown- Braun
Bus- Bus

Bush- Hitler

BURN!

Yeesh! These crackers sound like a bunch of assholes! I wonder why the hell my great grandmother felt the desire to knock boots with one. I mean, what the hell was she thinking having kids with such fascists who wanted to drown out her heritage!?

While I'm at it, fuck whitey for bringing Africans into America just so they can be oppressed. It would have been much better if those damn Caucasians left their culture alone and allowed those black people to live much better lives where they were born!



You can't invade land that didn't have any owners. Native Americans had no concept of ownership and no moral perceptions; raiding and seizing was all they cared about. With little progression in their lives, they were not only an impediment to American advancement, but also their own. Without any philosophy and/or ambition, their culture was stagnating and savage. Their tribal mentalities perpetuated friction between most of their sects.

There may have been growing pains and cultural differences, but in the end, Native Americans assimilated with the more advanced culture offering various ways to live healthier. As a result, their (and my) further existence was insured through the actions of the settlers.

In the end, it was to the benefit of both the Indians and the Americans to co-mingle through the absorption of Native Americans.



Aside from using Nazis as your (fallacious) example, do you actually have any practical problems with the idea of "civilizing" another more primitive culture? Certain tribes in Brazil still contract "Kuru" all the time because they refuse to stop eating the brains of their dead. If nearby settlers had decided to interact with them and basically told them that they should cease one of their most enduring traditions, would you feel that a form of oppression? Lets assume those settlers actually forced them to stop what they were doing and then showed them how to live more healthily and, in turn, survive as an intellectual culture. This act of "Nazism" would not only keep people from further contracting Kuru, but also allow the people and their bloodline to live on.



And yet the Europeans still developed more effective means of prolonging their lives through settlement, diplomacy, medicine, and industry. The French aside, do you think the Europeans still live in their own shit?



And yet they still allied with the French to attack American settlers.

In any event, that's not entirely true. When the European settlers hit Jamestown, the Iroquois Confederacy were less than friendly. In fact, they were in the middle of conquering all of the West Virginian Indians in an attempt to gain a monopoly over the Dutch's fur-trade with all the tribes.



The difference here is that the Europeans weren't impeding anyone else's development--Nor were they fighting simply for the sake of stealing and seizing as the Indians did. The Europeans fought for industrial and philosophical developments whereas the Indians were just cannibalizing themselves(in both contexts of the word) for the sake of prolonging their existence instead of actually making an effort of insuring further survival.



Question: Do you honestly think that-that was the first thing on the minds of the settlers when they met the Indians? Lets assume the Native Americans were actually progressive and still developing rather than just prolonging their uncivilized and (many times) violent lives. Lets say they sought improvement instead of stagnating; as a result, they traded and learned from the settlers as they did with the Dutch in smaller doses. If they were more industrious and less centered on the idea of retaining a savage lifestyle, do you really think there would have been so much friction between the two cultures?



Not only are you putting words in his mouth by saying Wonder Boy feels his "race" is superior to someone else's, but you're also mis-quoting history and simplifying Indian culture



The advancement of the Europeans was based on both assimilation and mutual advancement with other cultures. i.e. They traded ideas and knowledge with other people who could actually follow their intellects (see also: The Muslims before they decided to regress into mindless retards). The Native Americans were less able and less willing to be on the intellectual level of the settlers; conflict is inevitable in such a scenario.



Please to note: The average IQ of your typical Mexican immigrant is less than high-school level standards. When they come in to the country illegally or with a dismissive mentality towards American cultural standards, they force intellectual regression on the society they're trying to inhabit. All the while said society tries to compensate by educating them and freeing up more space and money to convince them to assimilate, inflation is growing larger and more Caucasian Native Americans are losing their jobs.

On one hand, Indians and Americans unified (with growing pains) and became stronger. In the other, the Mexican separatists seek second-hander salvation through mooching off America's success and will inevitably collapse the ground that both the Mexicans and the Americans stand on. Two different situations.

On that note, here's an example of a resident and savage culture that's been consistently impeding the rest of the world's advancement for reasons just as meaningless as the Indians':





The Spanish Inquisition was an isolated incident that was not a representative of the culture itself. All the others practiced lesser forms of torture that were no way comparable to the savagery of a bunch of Native American tribes. In any event, Europe moved past it (for the most part) because they advanced philosophically--Something the Indians refused to do.



A war fought over territory and cultural survival. It held more meaning than Native American tribal dominance.



A disease?



You're overlooking the practices of the Mohawk tribe--Not to mention you're forgetting what they did to the European missionaries they abducted from neighboring tribes. While not totally similar in intent, they're uncanny in their gruesome natures.



Well...Yeah. As cultures progressed, they eventually lived longer and longer. Indians were simply not interested in the idea of advancing and they paid the price for their stagnation. The point being that the Indians, on average, had shorter life-spans than the Europeans.



Very few were that welcoming. The Pilgrims got lucky--And I don't mean they scored with the squaws.

Because the Native American paradigm was based on tribal relations and not actual unity and development, they didn't really take any land for themselves--They didn't even believe the lands could be owned.



Earlier in the lifespan of India and China, they were very progressive and advancing steadily until they hit their mutual walls, which is why their society is so plentiful even if their lifestyles are flawed and problematic (and, in the case of China, oppressive). The Native Americans weren't even nationally unified all the while India and China were moving forward with their philosophical and technological developments.



If you murdered the child, it would make you savage and primitive. In which case, you would be a hindrance not only to his family, but also yourself and civilized society. In which case, eliminating you would remove the philosophical obstructionism you encourage as a savage murderer.



The holocaust cannot be proven to be directly related to the advancement of the lifestyles of Jewish individuals. In the case of the Indians however, their good lifestyles are consequent of them integrating with the European settlers' culture and then using its Capitalist ideals to their advantage.



How does the boiling pot imply "subservience?" If one goes to a foreign culture and expects to live there, then that would imply the person moving there would actually be happy with the other culture rather than just bringing the one he's moving away from with him to his new home.



Responding politely to a white person is not actually the same as respecting them. I was nice to a lot of Mexicans I worked with a couple years ago and they were, in turn, nice to me (but not truly comfortable with a white person in their midst--As my supervisor was kind enough to let me in on). One day, they found out that I was against giving illegal immigrants Driver's Licenses and they went back to being as stoic towards me as when I first began working with them. Then I was later referred to as "you white people." Which is exactly what I get for being in California.

You still living in San Francisco? If so, I have a suggestion for you: Try living in SoCal for an extended period of time, get a taste of being the Caucasian minority laborer, and actually listen to what the bulk of the immigrants around you are saying. I guarantee you that what you will hear will not be as good natured as what you experienced.

That's monstrous!

Do you really mean that or are you being facetious?

yes.

Well, that's a relief.

Basically, it's good when Anglo-Americans kills people of other races, but bad when for example Germans do it. That makes perfect sense.

Why the frakk can't I put Pariah on ignore? It worked with rex.

Pariah is a mod...

Using hyperbole to make a point only works when your not the one generalizing.



You don't know that. That's utter arrogance. What if Bill Gates or Madonna took your children using that same line of reasoning?



That's an exceptionally unscrupulous argument. Essentially your just advocating being a bully. Taking advantage of those just cause they don't have a piece of paper saying they own the land. Possession is 9/10 the law. They were there first.

And you make it sound like they were so inferior. They weren't, they were peaceful by many accounts. Valueing life before possession, caring about the earth around them, trying to achieve spiritual harmony as opposed to superfical wealth. That makes alot more sense to me then shallow, callous, narrow-minded guys like you.



Assimilated? What the fuck do you and WB think this is fucking Star Trek? Have you no concept of pain? Are you completely dissassociated from reality that you'd write of years of war as "growing pains".



No thanks to guys like you who would have let the weaker rot and then pick through there bones.



It's not fallacious. It's same arrogant mentality.



I have a problem with people thinking they're so superior they have the right to decide what's best for people who are less "civilized". Did it ever occur to you that there not uncivilized there just diffrent? That maybe people aren't meant to be exactly the same? Who's to say what is civilized and where people should be in terms of society? You? A perfidious scumbag dressed in ethical clothing? Rather let Achmadidajad run shit.



The only thing stagnating is your sophistry. Maybe if the settlers/England weren't so set on there own agenda a more amiable outcome could have been reached.



Do you realize what your saying? Europe fought for power. And whenever someone wants power over another they impede that persons progress.



What are you talking about? It was fought to spread Christianity. Although I don't know why I'm surprised you'd rationalize it. It's the same truculent bullying you seem to respect.

Yeah, I'm sure they'd be happier in teepees in the middle of wheatfields waiting around for a buncha dead buffalo to show up.

Unrealistic? For sure. The only way for Native Americans to have preserved their culture as it was would have been to have never encountered Europeans on this continent in the first place. That means no United States. And while that might make some people happy (I don't think you're one of them), it just plain didn't happen that way. Now we can pout about it all we want, but until Doc Brown rolls up in the DeLorean it's not gonna change. From the initial post of the Thanksgiving thread it sounds like some Native Americans have dealt with it better than a number of posters in this thread. And if you asked most of them, the answers you get would probably be along the lines of yeah, whitey screwed us over, and that sucked, but at least we're not living in the Copper Age anymore! Which I could live with. Groups of people have been putting the hurt on each other for most if not all of our nation's history. We can either have people who weren't the direct offenders wringing their hands about it and incessantly apologizing to people who weren't the direct recipients for the rest of time, or we can attempt to deal with it, put it aside, and all get on with our lives and maybe try to be friends. I know which one I like more.

you can't judge one culture as being worth more than another. the Indians lived their lives, it may have been different than what the Europeans were doing but it was still valid. They had battles between peoples, so did the Europeans.
To say that one culture deserved to be wiped out in favor of a more "advanced" or "deserving" people is no different than Hitler wiping out the Jews to have more Aryan living space.

Uhhhhhhh... who says they weren't happy?

What do you know about it. They might have. There are all sorts of cultures in todays world that still live the way there ancestors did like Inuits and shit. They may very well have been happier without all the trivial shit we tack on to "modern" living.



They should have had the choice instead of being forced to "assimilate". You can deflect that point all you want with this "it happened and it's done with" nonsense all you want but it doesn't negate the point of the evil's that occur when people take it upon themselves to decide what's best for others.

Sammitch also said-



I don't know. THere's seems to be a bit of a contradiction here.

See Sammitch, THAT'S how you throw someone's words back in there face effectively.

Well my take on it is that yeah, it's the past and there is atrocity enough to go around the world over. That doesn't mean one has to just shrug it off and rationalize it. the Nazi analogy works for me because it'd be,,, um monstrous! to say "oh well 6 million Jews were killed but at least they got their own country afterwards so they should be happy about the Holocaust!

It's completely insensitive and sort of asshole-ish. As for the cultural differences, we tend to see everything from a very materialistic POV. What we value shouldn't be taken as what everyone values or what is really important either. We value stuff essentially. Material goods never saved anyones soul or brought lasting happiness. In fact one could argue that it's an impediment to spirituality and true happiness.

Ultimately though it is an academic argument so it's going to change nothing. Still, it is a measure of character and the ability to empathize in how one responds to it.

well at the time Europe had the earliest real cities. They were full of piss and shit from the roaming farm animals. Europeans didn't bother much with bathing or hygene. They had cruelty towards their women and religious persecution.
Obviously superior to the dark skinned people who enjoyed living off the land and being at peace with their natural surroundings.

According to Pariah, France still lives like that.



though I think he was being facetious.

You know, this obsession with France needs to stop. It's just not... healthy.

All I know is I'd better I'd better not hear any bitching out of Sammitch and Pariah, when my plan to enslave all the worlds morons and beat some sense into them so they can assimilate to my superioriy, comes to fruition. No matter how much "growing pains" they have to endure.

[/quote]
but you're bringing up the style of life that the Indians lived. So it is necessary to compare the two cultures at the time.
You and wondy act like there was some golden age European Utopia and they came here to create some wonderous perfect society and the dirty savages got in their way.
What it really was was several nations exploiting America for its resources with little to no concern for the indigenious people. They brutalized, and victimized the native populations justifying it by their belief that the natives were less than human.
It's one thing to say it happened get over it and move on, but to justify it and make it seem like killing them off was moral is beyond grotesque.

Figures.

So, despite he's the most hated person on the boards, it's decided that he's a mod for, I dunno, the Arcade forum because he knows games or some shit.

I don't think Pariah realizes that "assimilate" doesn't mean 90% killed off. The official US gov. stance on Native Americans up until the early twentieth century was "shoot on sight." that's hardly assimilation or living together in advancement.

and "growing pains"? someone needs to learn about the Trail of Tears. this ain't no sitcom, kids.

I've been trying to get Pariah fired for months now. I would replace him of course. If you think this is a good idea, send Rob a private message or ten!

while i remain the most popular non-mod here.

Last I checked, Hitler starved his own people. Tell me how that's comparable to a generations long friction between the Americans and the culturally-opposite Indians?



Who's generalizing now? It's not my fault white people are the scum of the universe; I'm just telling it how it is you know.



That's what I just said! Americans shouldn't have taken the Africans to America. They would have been much happier where they were.



You see--That's just the thing: Possession wasn't 9/10 of the law, because there was no law there in the first place. Everyone there was too busy isolating themselves and steadily killing each other to form any national sovereignty. In that right, the militant French and the Indians were exactly alike (sans advanced ways of living).



Philosophically and technologically, they were indeed inferior. They had no advancement and "becoming one with nature" wasn't allowing them to live longer as the European lifestyles allowed the Anglos to. Therefore, it is empirically appropriate to conclude that they were culturally inferior as well.



I'm sure you watched Into the West and The Last of the Mahicans many times, but that doesn't make their ceaseless flattery true. Before you try and say they cared very little for "possession" and "superficial wealth" you should read up on the raiding parties they conducted on their own tribes and their fur-trade with the Dutch.

And yes, they were very spiritual, but last I checked, it was that same spirituality that led to religious idols that were particularly evil in nature; some animals they interacted with were seen as almost demonic in nature (plus there was the traditional scalping). Last I checked, that's exactly what people like yourself hate about Christianity: The fact that it includes belief in things like Satan and Hell rather than just love and God. That doesn't sound like your definition of "spiritual harmony" to me--In fact, not all tribes had the same beliefs or patron spirits, so I'm a little confuse as to what you mean.



I realize that liberals like to demonize the word "assimilate" and refer to the Borg, but if you'd please to note: It's a very utilitarian word that fits the context. I could say "boiling pot" if you like but it's a bit awkward grammatically.

Yes, my ancestors went through growing pains. There was both suffering and racial supremacy involved, but in the end the Native Americans lived on with the Anglos, and because there was a harmonious end-result, it is deemed appropriate to consider that suffering growing pains.



The only ones I would have considered weaker are the ones who felt compelled to shun American culture even when it was apparent that it was healthier to live in.



The Nazis sought supremacy and they killed their own people. That's not the same as wanting to spread their own brand of enlightenment.

The settlers sought trade and integration. Stray racism aside, you're going to find in any history book that it was the intent of the settler to make Indians into officially second-class citizens.



"Rights" aside, this just makes you stubborn and ignorant. The scenario I presented would have saved the lives of a dying and diseased people and you're actually saying it's better to die than to resort to a more advanced way of living so as to prolong peoples' lives. You're so concerned with my lack of humility, that you refuse to see cultural advancement as simply the most logical course of action.

Nowhere did I say that all cultures have to be the same. But there has to be a similarity in lifestyles if we actually want those cultures to live in a healthy environment.



Sophistry? Huh. I had to grab the dictionary for that one. In any event, there's nothing "subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious" about my reasoning. And you do little to actually demonstrate as much.

If you actually knew something about American history from 1600s onward, you'd realize that everyone had their own individual "agenda." You're just making a very lack luster effort to criminalize the Anglos by using the word "agenda" as a means of implying that they were out to sabotage the Native America way of life from the get-go.



War itself is a necessary function for weeding out dissension and allowing progress. Yes, for the most part, progress was at a standstill, but insuring their way of life was paramount before they could develop anything. The Indians didn't even seek to drown out dissent; they just fought for petty reasons.



WOW.

Read a history book. Figure out that it was the Muslim Seljuk Turks that carried out the first gambit on Jerusalem and threatened the Byzantine Kingdom. Then try to tell me that it was started for the sake of conversion--Especially after the Christian Anglos had already made peace with the more benevolent Muslim Arabs at the time in efforts to share the holy land.

Yes, the warriors all had particular religions (Muslim/Christian), but that doesn't mean the governments fought the war for the sake of religion. It was a territory dispute.

I'm afraid your plan would collapse under the weight of its own irony.

the obsession continues!

you get effort points. style is still painfully lacking, but effort counts for something. at what point was any morality forced on anyone in my post? I think the only attempt I made at actually driving home a point was that if anyone's got a reason to gripe about it, it should most likely be someone whose existence was even in the remotest way adversely affected by it. that said, your 'effectiveness' at throwing individuals' words in 'there face' is still highly debatable.

context. there weren't omnipresent wheatfields where they were before the europeans showed up, and the buffalo weren't dead at the time. not all of them, anyway. from those two points, it should (I thought) have been fairly obvious that I wasn't talking about the way things were before the europeans showed up. there was a notion in previous posts that somehow the native americans should have been able to co-exist without being 'forced' to 'assimilate'. that wasn't an option. when there's wheat growing all over your ancestral hunting grounds and all your buffalo are shot dead to let the railroads come through, yeah, you and your culture just got screwed over, and it was a pretty shitty thing to do. but guess what? it happened all the same. and focusing on anything other than 'what do we do now?' would be academic.