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

Yeah, I've never lived under such fine gents as Abacha, Afewerki, Al Bashir, Amin, Barre, Biya, Bokassa, Doe, Eyadema, Gaddafi, Habre, Kabila, Mengistu, Mobutu, Mswati, Mugabe, Moi, Nguema, Taylor, or Toure, but I'm sure they were fair and moral individuals.





Uh, yeah I'm the one who told you about their trade agreements in the first place. Do you know why they never lasted? Because they had no lawful precedent. The Native American philosophy of survival and interaction was base upon whim and necessity. You're trying to tell me that they thought it was generally "right" to be peaceful with each other when they held no such values aside from circumstantial inter-dependence.



So it's this late in the game that you actually decide to read up on a Native American-Settler history after trying to go by the Hollywood note of, "Those evil whities treated the Indians like shit!" for so long?

Yes, I'm sure you ran crying to a history site after you were unable to dispute any of the history I recited in response to your generalist ideas of 'they must have had morals and the whites must have been evil!' However, that doesn't mean it's going to impress me.



It's taken you this long to refer to the Manifest Destiny? I figured with someone so knowledgeable in the atrocities of the pre-21st century west, you would have made note of it much sooner rather than just find out about its existence.

Here's a Wiki article to complement your little "infoplease" site:

• Native Americans
  
  Manifest Destiny had serious consequences for American Indians since continental expansion usually meant the occupation of Native American land. The United States continued the European practice of recognizing only limited land rights of indigenous peoples. In a policy formulated largely by Henry Knox, Secretary of War in the Washington Administration, the U.S. government sought to expand into the west through the legal purchase of Native American land in treaties. Indians were encouraged to sell their vast tribal lands and become "civilized", which meant (among other things) for Native American men to abandon hunting and become farmers, and for their society to reorganize around the family unit rather than the clan or tribe. The United States therefore acquired lands by treaty from Indian nations, often under circumstances which suggest a lack of voluntary and knowing consent by the native signers. Advocates of civilization programs believed that the process of settling native tribes would greatly reduce the amount of land needed by the Indians, making more land available for homesteading by white Americans. Thomas Jefferson believed that while American Indians were the intellectual equals of whites, they had to live like the whites or inevitably be pushed aside by them. Jefferson's belief, rooted in Enlightenment thinking, that whites and Native Americans would merge to create a single nation did not last his lifetime, and he began to believe that the natives should emigrate across the Mississippi River and maintain a separate society, an idea made possible by the Louisiana Purchase of 1803.

Unfortunately, as it says, Jefferson's belief didn't last, but the point here is that the lands weren't stolen and the Indians weren't actually trampled on. Initially, efforts were made to assimilate them and not push them away. It was post-Jackson that the "Indian Removal" policy came into effect. After that, there was a failure rather than a lack of upholding civil rights for Native Americans. There was indeed unfair tribulations thrust upon the Indians who moved west as requested, but that was due to ineptitude and not official policies. In that rite, the Trail of Tears was a superfluous fumble; because the Cherokee were assimilating, the was no need for them to move, but because they did, neither Van Buren nor Jackson gave them the proper resources to make such a move.

Just some clarification.



Okay...You just ignored everything I said, so I'll repost my previous response:

"I'm not demonizing anyone, I'm saying that they didn't have anything done to them that they wouldn't have done to anyone else by their own standards of living and interacting with others. Then, when the settlers became more and more advanced and became a larger society with more opportunities, the Indians were retarding their growth with a simple unwillingness to recognize that it was better to live in a house than to risk your life in the wild (this was a problem during the 1700s, but moreso in the early 1800s)."

Because I verbalize the fact that they were living savage lifestyles, that doesn't mean I'm demonizing them--I'm not using it as a derogatory term; just as a statement of fact. Their early unwillingness to live healthier by refusing to merge with the very society that they were slowing down was simply mal-productive for everyone in the new world. Just because I make a point of showing that doesn't mean I'm demonizing them. If anything, I'm just saying they were short-sighted at that point.



Actually, it is the point, but since you're so adamant to use a "shoe on the other foot" analogy, I'll ignore the fact that you ignored a relevant observation of how fallacious your comparison is and roll with it:

Assuming that American culture was at the level of the Indians in the 1700s and the Russians or India wanted to build a society here as a means of expansion with technology and ways of living far beyond ours, I wouldn't mind assimilating so as to advance my way of life.

I'm sure you don't like that answer, but it's the only one I'm going to give; your present day analogy just doesn't make any sense.



*sigh* Another bullshit paragraph.

First: Vietnam was fought for the sake of cutting off communism. Not spreading democracy. Giving Iraq a democracy was a secondary objective for the sake of building an ally after we've eliminated a threat (I'm not going to both arguing on whether or not it was worth it). That's not the same as simply wanting to enlighten society just for the sake of doing so.

Second: America is not the only country that has bases situated all over the world. Being strategically setup is not the same as "policing." We have never attacked another country for the sake of anyone else aside from ourselves.



What do you think it is that forms that common sense of yours? It's the context of the time-frame that even begins to form a common sense structure of logic. It's only because the Europeans brought over philosophy that there is any perception of common sense and concept of ownership in the first place. It's only because of the Anglos that the Indians were even able to develop concept of ownership over land in the first place.



I'm not sure wha "fake patriot" means, but...Well, you're wrong. As I said, I do believe America has done bad things as a country in the past. This just isn't one of them.