Quote:
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.


Ummm...you.

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


Yeah sure.

 Quote:
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).


But there was law. Just cause it wasn't written on paper doesn't mean it's not rightfully there's. You can argue species semantics all you want but they were there first.


 Quote:
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.



So what? They were incapable of deciding there own fate? They needed the benevolent Europeans to save them?

 Quote:
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 I'm sure you'd love for us to consider you the ultimate authority on every conversation you grace with your presence. Nobodies saying there perfect but your demonizing them because they were diffrent.

 Quote:
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


It's not the word so much as the callous and thoughtless idealogy behind it.

 Quote:
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.


Who's hasn't? It's not appropriate it's minimizing. It was tragic what happened. Does that mean Europe was evil...not necesarily. However, we should learn from them and that's not gonna happen if nitwits rationalize there actions with some nonsense about how they were really just helping the poor ignorant Injins.

 Quote:
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.


Your right. Let's cherry pick through reality and rationalize bad behavior just to put America up on a pedestal. That's much better then facing reality.

 Quote:
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.


First off, the Nazis didn't see Jews as "there own people". Second, they thought the everybody should be like them. It's the same vain mentality who sought, at least in part, to make the Indians like them. Same arrogance.

 Quote:
"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.


They were only dying and diseased cause of the settlers. They may have been just fine if we hadn't gone to the mattrices with them. They should have had a choice. And yeah, part does think it's better to die then live under then be "assimilated". If India or Russia invaded tommorow using the same "assmilation" logic your using what would you want the U.S to do? I'm guessing you'd want us to fight back. But when we assimilate others it's A-okay. Can't have it both ways. I realize circumstances vary but I'm talking about a mentality of imperialism where we're better so anything we do or have done is okay.

 Quote:
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.


Well then, I'll keep it simple for now on



See, this is where you begin to tell me over and over again how I haven't "proved" anything thereby not relying on actual substance to make an argument so much as blatant denial. Therefore, this is the part I get more leeway to be immature and deflective.

Cause you see, your logic is Sophistry cause it's the kind of logic that can only exist in a vacuum. A vacuum where the was nothing more to justice then the written letter of the law. Where there's nothing more to life then existence. Where there's nothing more to right and wrong then cold hard logic. It's one dimensional absolutism. But I'm sure you'll prove my point for me.

 Quote:
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.


I'm really not criminalizing anyone other then you or anyone else who would rationalize the actions of the settlers for the sake of eradicating any blemish on America's greatness.

 Quote:
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.


Somehow "insuring your way of life" and "progress" never seem to mesh. In fact there pretty much antithetical. I'm sure theoretically both can be achieved but when people are so dependant on there way of life by going to war with people who aren't really threatening it is usually a sign of people who aren't intrested in progress so much as control. So basically your logic is hollow. Plus, you really can't have progress without dissent so not only is your logic hollow but contradictory.

 Quote:
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.


Alright genius, why were they fighting over the territory or "Holy Lands"? Could it be cause those lands had RELIGOUS VALUE.

I understand your point, but how you don't understand mine without responding with an obnoxious response is just plain dense.