My argument is that (1) European colonialism, while having its ugly moments, has been a NET GAIN for the Third-World peoples who were previously colonized by them, and that they have a better incomes, education, courts, universities, lifestyles and economies as a result.
and you've also called the europeans superior to the indians as a justification for their murder. then when confronted you say that not that many died and since they have better roads now it's ok that they live on pissy reservations and have troubles with alcohol.
Again, what you say is completely false and unproven, just your spiteful angry intolerant spin.
Technologically and culturally superior, NOT racially superior, as you endlessly slander me to have said.
Native Americans --as I just said!-- have more education, better diet, better healthcare, longer lifespans, and exist in greater numbers than they did at the time Columbus discovered the Americas. A net benefit, as have benefitted the Arabs, African-Americans, India, China, and many other post-colonialism cultures.
And
(2) That all the blame for world problems is heaped on Europeans, when in truth every race and culture on earth has done its best to exploit whoever they could when they were/are ascendant in power. Black slavery, Chinese invasion of Indochina, the Mongol invasions of asia, Europe and the middle east, Islamic aggression and barbarism both past and present, the Chinese currently in Tibet, and atrocities on Europeans by Native Americans. And in many cases what Europeans are blamed for, Africans and other non-Europeans either were patially or primarily guilty, but non-Europeans are excused and Europeans are blamed.
no, my point has always been that all cultures have their sins.
No, that's been my point all along, Ray, while you've maliciously tried to allege that I think Europeans have done everything perfect and are blameless (which endless posts of mine prove a false allegation, and you can only allege this by paraphrasing and mischaracterizing me).
which was the point i was making above about muslims and the crusades. you're the one who painted them [muslims?] as evil and the christians as universal heroes. you're the one who wishes we would all just gloss over any sin of the american government.
I can barely discern a coherent point out of that illiterate sentence, but in any case, what you allege about my viewpoint is false.
You're the one generalizing in absolutes of right and wrong, and then alleging that I'm the one who says Europe=Good and Non-european=Bad.
When in truth I've only said that liberals join third-world partisans in disproportionately scapegoating all or the majority of blame on Europe, while excusing and dismissing the barbarism of Islamic aggression (colonialism and brutal occupation of Europe and North Africa), the brutality of historic Native Americans (inter-tribe wars, human sacrifice, atrocities on Europeans), black Africa (their primary role in slavery, long before and long after Europe abandoned slavery), India (burning wives alive with their dead husbands, until British colonialism stopped the practice), Indonesia (cannibalism), the Phillipines (cannibalism), Papua New Guinea (cannibalism), and on and on.
Unlike you, I acknowledge the good and bad of European colonialism. But unlike you, I see the good of Europe outweighing the bad, and being a net gain for peoples outside of Europe.
And unlike you, I don't slander you to have said things you never actually said, as you have me.
It's sad that not only do you fail to live up to your own standards of being a loving christian, but you also have to steal the arguments of a liberal.
You constantly redefine Christianity to mean
anything but what it actually means. Basically, anyone who believes in actual biblical Christianity has to be demonized by you as "intolerant".
Anyone who defends and advocates Biblical Christianity (their political right, in a Christianity-spawned democratic society) is convolutedly described by you as "not loving", and anyone who simply voices their right to protest these liberal slanderings is portrayed as a "hater" by you and similar assholes.
A "hater", for defending the Biblical concepts on which our Constitution and freedoms were formed. "intolerant" for attempting to preserve reference to the Biblical source on which the founding fathers said American Democracy was doomed to failure, unless Biblical teachings were a part of our society.
How far we've fallen in just 40 years.
How sad that you have no standards, Ray, and live to corrupt, harass and slander those who do.
Your abstracted quotes of me NEVER ONCE showed me saying the things you imply. You always "proved" I was an alleged racist or whatever by quoting something I said that DIDN'T prove what you said, and spinning it with a paragraph or two of your own words, paraphrasing me to say what you wanted to stereotype me as saying.
So you're a lying sack of shit, just like always.
no, i'm just feeling lazy today. i've actually been careful to only mention quotes i remember you saying.
You're actually just making it up as you go along.
Sometimes I wish had enough meanness in me to give you a full taste of the mocking antagonism you live your miserable life to dish out every day. But I stood at the edge of the abyss, and I stepped back. Better to let you roast in your own bile, than to leap off there with you.
___________________________________________
Battle not with whomods, lest ye become a whomod.
And if you gaze into the whomod, the whomod gazes also into you.
--Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzche (abridged)
