I was making a point about how the black people who were taken to America would have suffered under those dictators. You responded by saying they were going to suffer under Cheney, Bush, McCarthy, etc. anyway. In effect, you're saying that your personal feelings for how evil Republicans are is equivalent to all the evil of the African dictators.
"Yeah sure, they probably would have been slave-driven, worked to death, tortured, and executed during the reign of the 20th century American dictators! But living under the jerks we got isn't much better now is it!?"
No Halo. I guess it's not.
One more time, with feeling. I wasn't making a comparison or that they were evil as those African people. All I'm saying is that there's bad people everywhere. It's that simple.
I just think it's asinine for you to point at Africa's bad leaders talking about how much better the US is since in Africa the people probaly rationalize for there leaders the same way you, G-man, Sammitch , and Wonderboy rationalize for Bush and all them. In the Thanksgiving thread a posted a link to a site where a Romanian was rationalizing for Vlad the implaler.
BTW, who are you quoting?
No. I asked why you think the agreements they had between each other never lasted.
Ok. I see now.
Perhaps if you'd actually studied the cultures, you'd get some insight.
The fact that you don't know what I'm talking about doesn't automatically mean that I'm wrong. It actually means that you're ignorant.
Maybe if you didn't manipulate, exaserbate, make up facts to your benefit you might be takin somewhat seriously. Actually, maybe if you weren't a callous asshole who marginalizes genocide (oh I'm sorry I mean "mass murder") as "growing pains you'd be takin seriously.
You say that it was chaos with the Indians? That they were savages who slaughtered each other but that's not true. Not the way you present it. It was called Endemic Warfare. For them it was like the Olympics competing against each other for honor and what not. That's not very intelligent IMO but hardly the anarchy you present.
Here-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endemic_warfare First you say it’s simply because you think I’m stupid that you disagree. Then you say it’s because you actually know what you’re talking (and then we find out you don’t).
No, I knew just enough to know you were wrong. I also knew that your blinded by your ego (just another way of saying your stupid). I knew two things at the same time. It's my own special talent*
However, the fact your making anykind of deal out of this means your desperate for argument material.
They didn’t just lack the same law. They didn’t have any law at all. Feel free to disprove that with actual history at any time.
Why am I the only one who has to provide referances? Your the one running your mouth like the grand master of Injin history. I've already provided links, your turn to back it up.
But here's a little back up using sense. In order for them to have a working society of some kind they must have had SOME kind of law or concept of law.
Okay, that’s one reference, now prove that it’s conjecture by expressing what makes it a false historical reference.
See above.
And that means I was leading away from yours?
Infoplease had next to nothing for me to work with except for brief summaries with no thoroughness and you expect me to cooperate with it? Wikipedia didn’t say much that was different you know; I used it because it actually had references that we were talking about. I repeat: Your “Manifest Destiny” citation was not in the link you gave. How the fuck is someone supposed to tolerate your source when you don’t even incorporate any of its material?
Excuses excuses. I've boldened the only part of your statement that really matters. Infoplease had nothing that helped your case so you went to Wiki and found a paragraph that really didn't offer anything in the way of the conversation. Or the actual conversation. You seem to think I'm saying they were evil. Let clarify right now what I'm actually saying.
-What happened to the Indians was tragic.
-Then Indians weren't the mindless, chaotic, barbarians you paint them as.
-The US was wrong for the most part.
-Your an idiot to so callously dismiss what happened as assimiliation.
Those are my points. Not that AMerica is evil, not that the Indians were perfect, just what's listed above. All though, I might have lost track of other points those are the ones that I'm really trying to get across.
You’re floundering. At this point, your extrapolating minutia so as to distract from you lack of knowledge on a subject you just jumped into.
Pariah, I told you at the begining there comes a certain point where instead of taking your redundant dribble seriously I'd just mock it to save myself time answering the utterly inane. For me to be floudering I'd have to be doing something diffrent then what I've been doing or said I would do. So, you can take this little red herring and stick it up your battered rectum.
Nope. Every time I made a point about citing history, you’ve said only that I quoted it incorrectly. At the same time, you offered no official corrections beyond, “You’re wrong.”
Tell yourself what you want but *actually* looking back it's simply not true.
What you say I said is not what I actually said. Nice try though.
Indian culture was simply “imperfect,” it was (my exact term) “savage.” Which is terribly and primitively unhealthy. If you choose to live in those conditions even while knowing there’s a much healthier way to live around the corner, that makes you both masochistic and suicidal.
See this is what I'm talking about. Maybe you'd see something more then "your wrong" if you actually looked at what I'm saying. I never said you said that I was making an inference.
Maybe they weren't so much suicidal as they were brave or loyal. I'm not saying they were I'm just saying that maybe things don't always fall into the compartments you assign them according to your own outlook.
Wrong again. It says stray Indians who didn’t want to comply with the land treaties were “forced” out. That’s not the same as making them sign the treaties by force.
Now your just making shit up. Here's exactly what it said-
The treaties enacted under the provisions of the Removal Act paved the way for the reluctant—and often forcible—emigration of tens of thousands of American Indians to the WestI don't even see the word "stray" Indian in there.
For the next 200 years? Chyeah! Okay.
Why not? People in Hawaii, Okinawa, New Zealand made do with much less. To this day there's still alot of unhoused territory on the east coast. But you know what your right. In 200 years Canada's population will be too big for there territory so they would be perfectly within there rights to expand south.
What the hell are you talking about? Not even during the most severe periods of the Indian Removal Act did the Anglos ever concentrate and deliberately starve to death the Indians. They didn’t torture them nor did they execute them.
What I'm talking about is your narrow minded view on things. They didn't
intend so it was okay?
I’m not sure, but I think this is the third time you’ve made an effort to try and use the Nazis as a crutch. Get a new act and stop tossing around the word genocide like so much confetti.
Okay, I'll use slaughter instead. Really doesn't make a diffence to me. Genocide just seems to reflect the proper body count. I try not to break Godwyn's law but the Nazi referance fit into the conversation at the time. Don't like it...tough titty.
I didn’t ignore it. I explained to you very thoroughly was it wasn’t a valid example and then demonstrated a way to phrase your analogy that would be more appropriate to the context of the discussion.
You changed the question into a matter of who was superior which had nothing do with it except in your own fucked up mind where all that matters is superiority.
But the Anglo government didn’t officially have anyone murdered. I’m sure there were stray Anglos who were prejudice enough to commit murder, but killing them in a war an being too inept to keep the Cherokees from dying during the emigration is not the same as murder.
Abusing the word “genocide” is just another way of making and ad hominem attack.
Fuck officially, they killed alot of mother fuckers. That's the point.
You seem to be very defensive about the word Genocide? (see now that's an ad hominem attack)
That’s a more appropriate question, but even the country-farmer lifestyle is still healthier than the tribal hunter/gatherer lifestyle. In fact, our superior technological lifestyle is still pretty dependent on our farmers.
It's the same fucking question I originally asked you jerkoff.
But getting back to the question: If we were to assume that everyone—And I mean EVERYONE—In the US was a hill-billy and not making a any progress beyond living from day to day, then yes I would see justification for absorption by another country who felt it could put better use to the land. From my current objective point of view, it would be mal-productive to fight off the culture that’s importing cultural advancement and better lifestyles even my hypothetical hill-billy double would fight off settlers.
So people shouldn't a choice in how they live all that matters is some superficial sense of progress. I just have this crazy notion that all life has value and people shouldn't have to worry about somebody usurping them just cause that persons bigger. If your logic actually had any validity then we should get rid of the law for the exception of survival of the fittest.
Yes, they think it was bad. They thought it was bad because it was a threat. Ever heard of the domino effect? It happened in Europe and America wanted to preempt it.
Thinking something's bad is okay. Going to war cause you think others should agree with you is arrogant.
So I guess this means you don’t believe they brought philosophy to the new world…
They were evil*
Which doesn’t really say much about you when you’re avoiding telling me what it means.
It means I don't placade idiocy. Other then my own of course.
So lemme get this straight: You infer that I think I’m special because I believe what I do? Based on…..What? The fact that I type a lot?
Yeah, it’s much more likely that you’re suffering a serious case of envy.
I infer you think your special out of a hunch. Take that however you want.
*Sarcasm was used
