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.
Yes, and you said that Cheney, Bush, McCarthy, etc. were of the same level as bad as Africa's tyrants. Good show.
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.
Uh huh. You won't find anyone willing to speak against those rulers for the simple reason that dissent isn't allowed under those governments. In America, we don't suffer that handicap. So your point is hollow.
The most you've been able to say so far is "rationalize." Meaning that you're lumping together everyone you hate with everyone who's actually evil and mass murdering and saying that it's not much better over here. I'm sorry if you find me rationalizing a president's actions in going to war comparable to a dictators actions in torturing, murdering, and stealing from his constituence, but I can't be blamed for your own ignorance.
BTW, who are you quoting?
Common sense. Anyone reading the conversation would have known that you were comparing Bush et al to the African dictators and yet you flip-flop and try to deny it.
Let me try and phrase this a different way that you could perhaps understand (not very likely though):
African citizen: Last year, my family and I were taxed into the ground, my neighbors’ houses were seized for “government business,” my brother was carried away for interrogation after being accused of conspiracy, professors were executed for teaching about history outside of the state, and our dictator personally indentured citizens to be miners and work for pennies on the hour.
Halo: Yeah well, what can you do? The only thing anyone can look forward to nowadays is a corrupt and evil ruler. Take my country for example: I got this retard who actually thinks pointlessly retaliating against foreign terrorism and tax-cuts are good things—Not to mention the fact that gas prices have raised under his term. It’s surprising that no one’s rebelled yet considering how hellish it is in America nowadays.
African citizen: ...
In this scenario, you more clearly made no comparisons, but that doesn’t mean your ideas are any less ridiculous and insensitive.
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.
Haven’t manipulated, exacerbated, or made up facts. You’re just to sore to admit that you’ve been schooled and so you’ve adopted a ‘deny everything’ knee-jerk.
And “genocide” and “mass murder” are basically synonymous. So you can’t use either phrase in the context you’ve chosen. You can’t “marginalize” what didn’t happen (mass slaughter of Indians).
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 Oh my God you’re stupid.
Endemic warfare isn’t a Native American tradition you moron. It’s a socio-cultural phenomenon that surfaces in tribal societies that live in proximity. It’s not something that originated from them. And even then, it’s still violent behavior with a savage edict—It doesn’t lead to anything; endemic warfare is a skirmish cycle that carries no objectives aside from raiding someone other than yourself. If the most you can offer up is an ‘unofficial rules of engagement’ then you might as well...I dunno, stop posting.
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.
Eh, right. Calling into question your credibility on a subject you’ve been arguing by note for the past 6 pages is being “desperate.” I’ll have to remember that one next time you tell me I’m wrong about history and then wait two posts to find a Wiki article or obscure link like “Infoplease” to complement your claim.
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.
In other words: You can’t prove me wrong and so you say that I’ve proclaimed myself an expert on Indian history just because I’ve stated the basics that you were previously unacquainted with before you spoke to me.
You’re the one who’s been saying that I’m wrong over and over again based on nothing but your opinion of what would craft “justice,” “law,” and “genocide.” The most you’ve done is picked apart the logic I’ve used to best define Native American culture. You’ve abided my references and then tried to put them into context rather than offer counter-citations. You can’t tolerate my examples this long and say you don’t have to listen to them when that’s what this entire conversation consists of. Try again.
...Oh yeah. And stop stalling and find me
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.
It’s called the “hunter/gatherer,” and it’s not a law. It’s necessity when you’re living out in the wilderness. In hunter/gatherer communities, rites of living fall into place; it doesn’t need organized thought, aside from developed and passed skills, to work. Furthermore, tribes aren’t exactly “societies” since they don’t rely on any systems of government aside from alpha male. That is to say, they’re not a “society” in its most advanced definition.
“Law” is an organized system of living that traces back to a chain of command or individual dictator demanding obedience. This isn’t the same as their warrior codes or honorific spirituality. Yes, they had a culture, but they didn’t have law.
You’re the one trying to school me remember? Avoiding question isn’t going to help your point OR your self-esteem along.
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 do you mean “excuses excuses?” YOUR LINK DIDN’T COVER WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT. And it was a pathetic hodgepodge of summaries without detail. Infoplease didn’t disprove or speak against anything I’ve said; it was just flimsy and stupid, so I got a better one. If you’re still so confident of it, then perhaps you should actually quote it rather than say I evaded it.
-What happened to the Indians was tragic.
In the case of Jackson’s idiocy and insensitivity toward the Cherokee and some of the North Eastern tribes, I agree.
In the case of the Iroquois Confederacy and other isolated hostile tribes being engaged by the settlers, I disagree.
-Then Indians weren't the mindless, chaotic, barbarians you paint them as.
I never said they were mindless, but their interaction with each other was indeed chaotic and they did practice form of barbarism, which is just a more lop-sided synonym for “savage.” There’s no need to paint them anything when history’s there right in front of you.
-The US was wrong for the most part.
Yes, you think they committed “genocide,” but do you really have any scenarios to offer up in which the government mandated a bill that demanded the Anglos to round them up and exterminate them?
You, quite simply, will not find anything of the sort. You will see history about a war and Anglo negligence that involved the Cherokee starving to death—But you will find nothing in regards to the government attempting to wipe them out.
-Your an idiot to so callously dismiss what happened as assimiliation.
Just because it took many years and the ride suffered many speed bumps, that doesn’t mean the Indians didn’t eventually assimilate. The Cherokees are the best example here.
I’m sorry if you’re over-extrapolating the phrase “growing-pains” to be too minimalist to work with the situation, but in the overall scheme of things, that’s what it is. The country was growing and the two races were clumsily pushed together with 2 centuries worth of hardship.
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.
So you say...And yet, here you are: Still responding to everything I say and considering it “asinine” with you still not “blowing me off.” Your inferiority complex is so extensive that you continue to follow the conversation even when you yourself state that you have nothing left to say in response to me since you feel my frame of reference is so bias and stupid.
You’re floundering.
Tell yourself what you want but *actually* looking back it's simply not true.
Halo, I’m sure you believe that saying this will stymie the point, but what you don’t realize is that there really is a thread for people to reference; I don’t have to look for sources to prove I’m right. Posters will look back and see that you’ve done nothing but respond with hearsay.
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.
Is this you trying to be anti-absolutist or something?
Your first sentence is basically saying, “You
could look at it that way, but...” and the second part is saying, “Nothing is for certain; you can’t be sure of it.” None of us can technically be sure of anything we say, but we still say it because it’s empirically relevant.
If a soldier charges a barricade with armed turrets aimed right at him when there’s two perfectly good flanks he could take advantage of, are you actually going to call that “bravery?” True or not, courageousness is not synonymous with “wisdom.” The aforementioned would have been much more effective were he to stay alive. You’re not scoring any point for the Indians by calling their adamancy not to assimilate a form of “bravery” or “loyalty.” Especially not when it’s more appropriate being considered “stubbornness” and “stupidity.”
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 West
I don't even see the word "stray" Indian in there.
From that Wiki article you posted titled “Indian Removal”:
Contrary to some modern misconceptions (and misrepresentations[2]), the Removal Act did not order the forced removal of any Native Americans.[3] In theory, emigration was supposed to be voluntary, however if they decided to stay then they would be without protection, without funds, and at the mercy of the states[4].The ones that stayed behind were strays. If you scroll down in the Wiki page, you’ll see info on the Seminole War in Florida that involved stray Cherokee.
Yes, I admit that they were strong-armed, but they were not physically removed or executed for refusing to move.
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.
Uh huh, and look at their assault history
because of their size. They’re sitting ducks in a conflict. Even if Japan wasn’t under a military embargo and were armed to the teeth, they still wouldn’t be able to protect themselves against a single wave of a Chinese invasion.
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.
They don’t need to expand since they can simply migrate here. And yes, it is within a country’s rights to expand into another country by annexing it, but that doesn’t mean they’ll get away with it and won’t suffer the consequences afterwards. But in any event, it would serve them to try and “expand” into America when both countries are first world.
What I'm talking about is your narrow minded view on things.
Narrow-minded view? I correct your ridiculous comparison because it’s not even close to true and you consider that warrant to say I’m narrow-minded?
They didn't intend so it was okay?
They didn’t
intend, so it wasn’t murder or oppression. They didn’t intend for wars to break out with the Natives in the expansion; that makes them short-sighted, not murderers. They didn’t intend to let the Cherokees starve during their emigration; that makes them inept and perhaps even negligent (I’m pointing more towards congress than I am at the people though; the military wasn’t given the resources it needed to sustain the Natives during their move; the elected officials fucked up the most).
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.
It’s not a matter of me not liking it. It’s a matter of propriety. A massive body count could be produced by a war, but that still wouldn’t make it genocide since war doesn’t carry the intent to simply exterminate life. It’s a disagreement between two intellectual bodies of people who have no choice but to resolve differences through military conflict due to an inability to reach compromise (which isn’t always a bad thing).
Slaughter, genocide, mass murder—None of these terms fit the history you’re quoting since you always try to inter-mix them with the fact that wars were fought. But you continually ignore the fact that wars are forms of dissent and not fought simply for the sake of eradicating a large number of people.
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.
Cultural superiority (what I was talking about) is not the same as individual superiority (what you’re referring to). The context of your analogy was mis-aligned. Using the cultural lop-sided state of the example you gave me, I demonstrated why your analogy was invalid. My pointing out the importance of noting cultural superiority was necessary to demonstrate exactly why your scenario was flawed.
I think you already know this but are acting ignorant just for the sake of confusing the issue. Yep, you’re Whomod’s ass-child alright.
Fuck officially, they killed alot of mother fuckers. That's the point.
In
wars. Not slaughter-fests.
You seem to be very defensive about the word Genocide? (see now that's an ad hominem attack)
And, if you’d read above, you’d see why.
It's the same fucking question I originally asked you jerkoff.
No it’s not. You made a “country-living” caveat. That makes the scenario diverse from the larger culture that is the US, so it morphs the question.
So people shouldn't a choice in how they live all that matters is some superficial sense of progress.
Progress couldn’t be more different from superficiality. The whole point of progress is so we can live healthier and longer. Why would you believe that to be superficial?
Also, last I checked, we locked people up in asylums and prisons because society felt their ways of “living” were detrimental to both themselves and the overall community. Are you trying to tell me that you’re not a proponent of such institutions?
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.
It’s not simply because they’re “bigger.” It’s because they’re more advanced as a culture and live much more efficiently and healthily. In which case, it’s because they have superior living conditions that they got so big in the first place. If they’re offering such advancement to a fringe society living only through trials of attrition, why should the society refuse aside from pride? You could say that they disagree with the more advanced culture’s morality, but of the reasons why the hypothetically inferior culture we’re talking about is stagnating is because it doesn’t even have a form of morality.
If your logic actually had any validity then we should get rid of the law for the exception of survival of the fittest.
How stubborn and immature of you to think.
Thinking something's bad is okay. Going to war cause you think others should agree with you is arrogant.
North Vietnam agreed with us, so we helped them.
Kuwait agreed with us, so we helped them.
Iraq sponsored attacks against us, so we attacked them.
An overwhelming number of citizens in Iraq agreed with ours ideals of democracy, so we’re helping them.
In the end, it’s not arrogance that drives America, but rather preemption. Do you really think we’re helping/helped/attack/attacked these countries for purposes of making them think differently? No. The primary of objective is to insure national security through neutralizing dissent. The dissent against democracy there is in the world, the less chance America will survive the speedy climb of socialism.
Their philosophy was evil? You do realize that you wouldn’t even have your own without them exporting it here yes?
It means I don't placade idiocy. Other then my own of course.
So it doesn’t mean anything and its your retarded non-sequitur. Okay.
I infer you think your special out of a hunch.
Which originates from your feelings of inadequacy towards me.
