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

FOR THE RECORD: Halo considers the men he named as being comparable to all the African dictators. Of course he's right, because Nixon, Bush, Cheney, and McCarthy are all Caucasian Americans that are inherently evil and tyrannous.



....What? Wha-What does this have to do with what I actually wrote?



You assume a lot of things. For example: You've been assuming what the structure of Native American "law" was composed of all the while refusing to actually check your references see that they had no lawful indoctrinations.



Okay, so first you say that you didn't believe me because you figured me to be mis-quoting history and now you're saying you started talking to me because you knew history in the first place?



Ah. An ad hominem generalization. Do me a favor an point out all of my conjecture and then express in detail how it qualifies as conjectural. You carry the burden of proof, so this should be easy for you.



What do you mean "take attention away" from it. You didn't actually highlight anything from it with which to argue over. On a glance, I couldn't even find a topic mention of the Manifest Destiny Jacksonian propoganda you based your paragraph around. There wasn't even anything in there that disputed disputed my claims let alone make me ignore it.



The exact words of someone who can't even refute someone else's claims.

If you look back Halo, the most you've done here is say, "No, it didn't happen like that," over and over again. You have not once offered any sort of counter citation ground in history.



As the previous paragraph I quoted pointed out, while there was intimidation, there was no real force when they bought the land--And the land was bought; not stolen or seized.

And by what reasoning do you declare it as unnecessary to expand across the entire land mass? Do you really think a series of colonial societies would be able to sustain a country with any sort of security whilst non-unified and in the placement they were in? Every growing society in the world has known it best to occupy the entirety of the land.



On the contrary: You're the one repeatedly exaggerating the term "genocide" in regards to the friction experienced between the Anglos and the Natives.

Genocide - the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

Please point out where in history, since you've proven yourself such an astute observer of past events, where the American government put together a mandate that called for the military/militia to seek out the Indians and slaughter them by the truck-load.

Don't bother looking for it. You won't find it. The Anglos and the Natives had a war and the Anglos were too incompetent to keep 4,000 Cherokees from starving to death. But you see, those are not examples of extermination; they're examples of conflict. Whether or not there may have been individual prejudice in the hearts of some of the Anglos does not mean there was official or personal intent to exterminate the Native Americans. The most you can throw together is a case that America, under the later (very unpopular) Jacksonian policies, wanted to segregate themselves from the Natives.



I have not dodged a thing and I have explained exactly why your analogy is flawed and indeed not "a valid comparison." In fact, I have gone at length to explain to you what's wrong with the scenario you presented and the most you could tell me was, "That's not the point and you fucking know it," or, more specifically, an ad hominem evasion of my analysis.



Again: Please point out to me where genocide was committed and please to use the actual standards by which "genocide" is actually defined to give me your answer rather than your own tainted perception.

And why exactly is assimilation generally a bad thing?



Okay. We are not an inferior culture to India and Russia. The three cultures are on the same intellectual wave-lengths with mutual knowledge of living healthily. Upon an objective observation of their cultures and comparison between the three, they have nothing to add to our lifestyles; as mutually superior intellects, it would only be logical to collaborate rather than dominate. Politics aside, there's no good philosophical or strategic reasoning to seize our land and person for purposes of assimilation when it would be detrimental to a society with an already prevailing lifestyle.

It is because of this that it would be perfectly appropriate to fight and die trying; they have nothing to teach us and nothing to add to our culture because we're as advanced as they are if not moreso. This wasn't the case with the Native Americans and the Anglos though, which is exactly why your analogy is not valid. The circumstances aren't comparable to the situation being discussed.



Lop-sided logic? The situations you try to compare to the Native American incidents as being justification for calling America a "democracy-pusher" are a little more than "not absolutely symmetrical," they're downright inappropriate. You're not simply mis-using the incidents incorrectly as an example, but you're also mis-quoting the intent of the Americans in every single situation (see also: "Spreading enlightenment")--Which is the point me going out of my way to shoot your comparisons and citations down--THEY DON'T MAKE ANY FUCKING SENSE.



So you use your facetiousness as means of denying that the Europeans exported philosophy to the new world. Makes sense.



If you wish. Now can you please tell me exactly what it means?



Where have I twisted anything. Highlight the situations I've cited and tell me exactly how I've twisted them.



.....What? Did you actually say that? I didn't even claim I was special and yet you say this? Inferiority complex much?