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!
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 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.
You would make a good Nazi. Justifying a foreign people invading "lesser" peoples to make them civilized.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
so? does that mean they were worthy of death?
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?
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?
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
Europeans were more advanced because of multiculturalism. They had many different cultures trading ideas and goods with each other. That advances a society.
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.
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.
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':
Muslims urged to shun 'unholy' vaccines- A Muslim doctors’ leader has provoked an outcry by urging British Muslims not to vaccinate their children against diseases such as measles, mumps and rubella because it is “un-Islamic”.
Dr Abdul Majid Katme, head of the Islamic Medical Association, is telling Muslims that almost all vaccines contain products derived from animal and human tissue, which make them “haram”, or unlawful for Muslims to take.
Islam permits only the consumption of halal products, where the animal has had its throat cut and bled to death while God’s name is invoked.
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?
Also human sacrifice was in the Aztek culture, not the North American Indians.
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.
so? everyone had a shorter life expectancy back then. Does the length of one's life determine how well and free they can live?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
So? You make horribly immoral points. There are rich Jewish families, does that mean the holocaust was actually a good thing?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
