http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/17/us/17surnames.html?em&ex=1195534800&en=a26ea272c49d9d22&ei=5070#

November 17, 2007

In U.S. Name Count, Garcias Are Catching Up With Joneses
By SAM ROBERTS

Step aside Moore and Taylor. Welcome Garcia and Rodriguez.

Smith remains the most common surname in the United States, according to a new analysis released yesterday by the Census Bureau. But for the first time, two Hispanic surnames — Garcia and Rodriguez — are among the top 10 most common in the nation, and Martinez nearly edged out Wilson for 10th place.

The number of Hispanics living in the United States grew by 58 percent in the 1990s to nearly 13 percent of the total population, and cracking the list of top 10 names suggests just how pervasively the Latino migration has permeated everyday American culture.

Garcia moved to No. 8 in 2000, up from No. 18, and Rodriguez jumped to No. 9 from 22nd place. The number of Hispanic surnames among the top 25 doubled, to 6.

Compiling the rankings is a cumbersome task, in part because of confidentiality and accuracy issues, according to the Census Bureau, and it is only the second time it has prepared such a list. While the historical record is sketchy, several demographers said it was probably the first time that any non-Anglo name was among the 10 most common in the nation. “It’s difficult to say, but it’s probably likely,” said Robert A. Kominski, assistant chief of social characteristics for the census.

Luis Padilla, 48, a banker who has lived in Miami since he arrived from Colombia 14 years ago, greeted the ascendance of Hispanic surnames enthusiastically.

“It shows we’re getting stronger,” Mr. Padilla said. “If there’s that many of us to outnumber the Anglo names, it’s a great thing.”

Reinaldo M. Valdes, a board member of the Miami-based Spanish American League Against Discrimination, said the milestone “gives the Hispanic community a standing within the social structure of the country.”

“People of Hispanic descent who hardly speak Spanish are more eager to take their Hispanic last names,” he said. “Today, kids identify more with their roots than they did before.”

Demographers pointed to more than one factor in explaining the increase in Hispanic surnames.

Generations ago, immigration officials sometimes arbitrarily Anglicized or simplified names when foreigners arrived from Europe.

“The movie studios used to demand that their employees have standard Waspy names,” said Justin Kaplan, an historian and co-author of “The Language of Names.”

“Now, look at Renée Zellweger,” Mr. Kaplan said.

And because recent Hispanic and Asian immigrants might consider themselves more identifiable by their physical characteristics than Europeans do, they are less likely to change their surnames, though they often choose Anglicized first names for their children.

The latest surname count also signaled the growing number of Asians in America. The surname Lee ranked No. 22, with the number of Lees about equally divided between whites and Asians. Lee is a familiar name in China and Korea and in all its variations is described as the most common surname in the world.

Altogether, the census found six million surnames in the United States. Among those, 151,000 were shared by a hundred or more Americans. Four million were held by only one person.

“The names tell us that we’re a richly diverse culture,” Mr. Kominski said.

But the fact that about 1 in every 25 Americans is named Smith, Johnson, Williams, Brown, Jones, Miller or Davis “suggests that there’s a durability in the family of man,” Mr. Kaplan, the author, said. A million Americans share each of those seven names. An additional 268 last names are common to 10,000 or more people. Together, those 275 names account for one in four Americans.

As the population of the United States ballooned by more than 30 million in the 1990s, more Murphys and Cohens were counted when the decade ended than when it began.

Smith — which would be even more common if all its variations, like Schmidt and Schmitt, were tallied — is among the names derived from occupations (Miller, which ranks No. 7, is another). Among the most famous early bearers of the name was Capt. John Smith, who helped establish the first permanent English settlement in North America at Jamestown, Va., 400 years ago. As recently as 1950, more Americans were employed as blacksmiths than as psychotherapists.

In 1984, according to the Social Security Administration, nearly 3.4 million Smiths lived in the United States. In 1990, the census counted 2.5 million. By 2000, the Smith population had declined to fewer than 2.4 million. The durability of some of the most common names in American history may also have been perpetuated because slaves either adopted or retained the surnames of their owners. About one in five Smiths are black, as are about one in three Johnsons, Browns, and Joneses and nearly half the people named Williams.

The Census Bureau’s analysis found that some surnames were especially associated with race and ethnicity.

More than 96 percent of Yoders, Kruegers, Muellers, Kochs, Schwartzes, Schmitts and Novaks were white. Nearly 90 percent of the Washingtons were black, as were 75 percent of the Jeffersons, 66 percent of the Bookers, 54 percent of the Banks and 53 percent of the Mosleys.

Terry Aguayo contributed reporting from Miami.

Wonder Boy and Lou Dobbs may be alarmed by this.

Garcia is a cool name.

Everyone knows of Jerry Garcia, former leader of the Grateful Dead.

I wouldn't have a problem with a hundred million Garcias, so long as they assimilate to our culture.

Millions of Garcias who don't speak english after 10 years in the U.S. I would have a problem with.
Millions of Garcias pushing for Spanish as the second U.S. "official language" (displacing english culture, and opening the door to spanish dominance) I would have a problem with.

The fact that hispanic immigrants, as compared to other immigrant groups, have the highest rate of incarceration, the highest rate of crime, the highest high school dropout rate, the highest use of welfare, and the lowest academic test scores, and overall the lowest rate of assimilation by these measurements, I have a problem with.
Mass numbers of immigrants who are not assimilating is not immigration. It is invasion.

You sound as if you have a problem with Mexicans Wonder Boy.

There are still some parts of the country I can go to where I may speak English till I turn blue but if I'm say, with my wife or family and for some reason we decide to communicate amongst ourselves in Spanish, I'll still receive indignant looks as I've committed some unpardonable crime.

It used to happen a lot to me back in the 1970's and my neck of the woods was still primarily Caucasian. Now, not so much as people here actually respect differences and in my experience are eager to learn about other cultures other than their own. Thank goodness for "white flight" I say. It tends to weed out the intolerant xenophobes.

It's not so much that some people want others to assimilate, they want others to completely obliterate any semblance of ethnicity lest their delicate ears hear a foreign tongue and they turn to stone. And it wasn't a desire to make one "assimilate", in my experience among people like this, it was a desire to make ones heritage appear inferior and worthy of obliteration.

As for Garcia being more common, good. I can't number the many times some asshole, either back in school or else in my working life that has changed my name to something more Caucasian sounding to put THEMSELVES at ease. Everything else about me told them "like me" except my name and they were all too eager to fix that as if it needed to be fixed.

Which is why I give you a hard time Wondy. Because I know your type from years of experience and I'm having none of it. One of the benefits of living in California is that except for the occasional incursion into the affluent westside where experiences with minorities goes as far as the maid or gardener (and it's reflected in the films and shows these people sometimes produce), I really don't have to put up with xenophobe crap anymore.

Did I tell you that the company I work for had some techs from (90% caucasian) Rhode Island visit us last year to upgrade our systems company-wide? I had the distinct pleasure of visiting several sites where these techs were at work. They looked as pissed off and miserable that Mexicans actually looked them in the eye and demanded acknowledgement and parity that they almost without fail rudely refused to give anyone that wasn't Caucasian or Asian. And they absolutely looked as if they were seething when people would speak Spanish. Best fucking month of my life. Wish it could have been you Wonder Boy. Wish it could have been you......

Yeah, nothing brings the healing like willfully antagonizing the people who have such a problem with you. Remind me about that next time you try and quote Scripture in the pinko health care thread.

Well no one thought they were antagonizing them by being themselves until we all realized it bothered them.

And then we really didn't give a fuck. It's their problem to surmount, not ours.

Not that you are bitter or anything.

None of what you said here even begins to answer the legitimate complaints I have about rampant hispanic immigration, their contempt for white America, and their forming a hispanic colony inside the U.S., enabling and endorsing massive illegal immigration into the U.S., etc. And the fact that Mexicans are the worst offenders in these categories, regarding gang membership, high-school dropout rates, welfare abuse, imprisonment, and on and on.

All you've done with your hate-filled rhetoric is confirm, with your own stereotypes of me and other white Americans, that you do have a contempt for us and our country. And that you do willingly enable the destruction of our culture, by replacing it with a hispanic culture. You gloat about it.
You delight in prejudicially tormenting those you, hypocritically, claim are the truly prejudiced ones.

But look at your own words. Look at your own actions, as you've just described them. It's you who's behaving with hate and bigotry, it's you who's excluding others. It's you who is stereotyping whites. And once again, your baseless personal remarks about me are yet another attempt by you to box-categorize me to conform, despite what I've said, to your pre-conceived stereotype of a white bigot.

Again, I've dated many, MANY hispanic women. If I were prejudiced against hispanics, I wouldn't socialize with or date hispanic women. I almost married a girl from Spain. I've dated women from just about every race and nationality. I've met immigrants from places like Iraq and Iran where their moving here saved them from being murdered by their governments, and they are supremely grateful and patriotic Americans as a result. My only objection to immigrants is if they don't assimilate, or --as you do-- voice an open hostility toward the whites/Americans who invited them legally into our country. Whether the immigrants in question are from Mexico, Germany, Czech Republic or wherever.


Regarding co-workers of yours you say react with contempt when you talk with co-workers in spanish, has it ever occurred to you that they are not prejudiced, but that they are just annoyed at your rudeness? It's rude to exclude others by not speaking the language you all share. The assumption of anyone in that situation is that they are being deliberately excluded, or so they can be talked about behind their backs.

It was a cute anecdote, though.






I don't know, man.

I know if I snuck into Russia illegally, or legally emigrated there, I'd except the entire nation to conform to me and my refusal to speak the language.

Oh man, so true!

What arrogance that an estimated 20 million people illegally break into our country, and then call the people who advocate enforcement of our nation's laws "racist". And call us racist, because they don't even have the decency to learn the language of the nation they broke into.

About 30% of legal immigrants to the U.S. since 1965 are Mexican, and God knows how many illegals. At least 30%.

But look at how the Mexican government treats Guatemalans and others who cross into Mexico across its southern border, and tell me if Mexicans have any moral high ground to accuse any other nation of racist or brutal behavior.

Excuse me? Hispanic colony? Elaborate. As for the rest, you just sound like a hate monger. The same crap comes up in regards to black people all the time and that in no way is indicative of the community as a whole. You however seem to try to make that into a portrait of a population. That is racism.



Excuse me?? "Our country"? When did I stop being an American citizen? Or was that some accident that you'd gladly revoke to anyone not like YOU? You sound as if you think you own America and everyone else not Caucasian has to work hard to meet your standards and prove themselves to you and only then will you bestow approval and citizenship on them. *&*#%@[insert descriptive expletive here] I'm an American citizen despite your wishes. HAHA. As for replacing "your" culture with a Hispanic culture, you really don't know the 1st thing about Los Angeles do you? The name alone should be a big clue. No ones replacing shit. It's been here for HUNDREDS of years.



No, i'm not stereotyping whites en masse. I'm describing to you why I can't stand people like YOU. There is a difference. And the common factor is see in people like you is this refusal to cohabitate for any length of time and accept people who aren't just like them. That doesn't describe ALL Caucasians, just a segment of the population. A segment that likes to flee at the first sign of the numbers of non Caucasians growing. Something you yourself said makes you uncomfortable. You think it's "invasion". You think you're losing sovereignty. You think people are "taking over". All on account of the color of their skin or on account of language. Not on anything resembling reality.



Fuck dude. That argument doesn't fly with me. it's easy for a bigot to be into a pretty woman of another race. It's quite another thing for you to actually accept and feel comfortable around her brother, her male cousin A MAN of her race, large numbers of people from her race. I've yet to encounter even full on openly unashamed bigots and skinheads, and I've been inside their houses before when they've thought I was one of their own, who don't accept pretty female minorities. It doesn't mean shit. It's like asking ANY man to be against Salma Hayek or Osama Bin laden's sexy neice.




Ok, i'll accept that.Even though it was quite apparent that wasn't the case. But that was just icing. These assholes wouldn't even respond when asked questions or engaged in conversation and instead would just sneer. They'd only talk to whites and Asians as equals. Which was odd since they were deep in South L.A. and most of the people around them were blacks and latinos.

Wondy, perhaps you might benefit from some introspection. you obviously have a paranoid fear and/or insecurity over your race and gender. i think instead of aggrivating yourself and these paranoid feelings you should just take a breather and avoid the talk radio shows which fuel your hatred. maybe that would allow you to find some peace and harmony. it's always sad to see mental illness go unchecked, so i hope you get the help you need.

Yeah! It would be as bad as if a band of Anglos went to a foreign nation, deported the native peoples from their ancestral lands, and forced them into unfamiliar customs, played them against each other, or just outright slaughtered them....

I keep telling you guys wonder boy is a minority. Thats why he's never posted a picture of himself, he's too ashamed of his skin color.

I think Wonder Boy is someone's alt id, perpetrating the greatest satire of our generation. No one, but NO ONE, can be that close-minded and xenophobic.

And I think he looks like this guy.

Have you ever listened to talk radio or watched fox news?

At least 30%!!! Oh the outrage!!! It's so outrageous that it bears repeating!!! 30%!!!!!



Then in the same breath you talk about the Central Amercans who cross over into Mexico illegally?

See Wonder Boy, this is the thing. I can tell even without that post that you make absolutely no distinction between legal immigrants and illegal ones. All that matters to you is that "your" country is changing.

Deal with it.

And Mexico has every right to enforce their borders just as America does. Funny how no one really wants to. They just like to prey on the emotions of xenophobes like you to win elections with empty promises. Regardless, you can rail against the Mexican along with Lou Dobbs all you want. The Census statistics show that regardless of ILLEGAL immigration, the LEGAL citizens and residents will soon be 1/4 of our country. You too will live next to "Mexicans"!!!



Notice the quotation marks, because the last post I responded on, you clearly referenced me as being NOT American based on my race. So I'll gladly call myself a "Mexican" if only to piss you off but I'm also an American citizen and I so hope that also chaps your hide.

And I'M BREEDING!!!! MWAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!

I know you're unable to do the same because all your women turned into militant working lesbians who sneer contemptuously at the traditional family and refuse to have children on account of feminism, liberals, and the 60's.

Or it could be that no woman can stand your backwards, sexist, intolerant ways for long... regardless of her ethnicity.


(YOU)

so, wondy is the dutch boy and i'm guessing g-man is the dam?

When he's talking about immigrants who refuse to learn the language, then he doesn't need to distinguish them.



Generic "you're afraid of change" knee-jerk.



Generic "xenophobic" knee-jerk.



I doubt Wonder Boy has a problem living next to Americans of Mexican heritage. However, when said Americans refuse to learn how to verbally communicate with the culture they've established themselves in, then that's just a big "fuck you" to the country and culture that welcomed you.

You seem to be so obsessed with pointing out insecurities in other people that you refuse to note that cultural paradigms can have negative social effects on the government itself. Have you even bothered to take into account the effect of a language confused system?



Then maybe you should...You know...At least act like it and not be a proponent of selling out your own country that, I'm sure, you were born in, or came to, legally.




I imagine you're the kind of Mexican American who feels his ascendant culture was cheated out of California and Texas, and because the land was either sold off or signed over, you also feel obligated to "take it back" simply by breeding on it. In which case, not only would you support the second-hander idea that it's okay to sneak back into this place now that the land has flourished under the control of Americans (despite how it might hurt the people living there), but also the separatist notion that because you're a certain ethnicity and bred from a particular history, that makes you a different kind of American--An elitist if you will. Perhaps you feel it's your duty or purpose to multiply as much as possible so as to outnumber the scary corrupt white people. You really gotta wonder if being American means to keep those kinds of feelings and intent.

It's a two-fold attack really since we have Affirmative Action rearing its ugly head every now and again. The whites are people being stereotyped as fortunate and rich (even though that's steadily dying down with illegal immigration nowadays) and not actually needing a fair share. All the while the Mexican illegals and Mexican American populace is being brought up with the perception that America and its evil Caucasian ratio owes them a big fat living--At their own expense if necessary.

No need to elaborate. Those who arrive in mass numbers and do not assimilate, are colonizers who wish to replace the existing culture with their own. And if that is their attitude, if they have no respect for the existing culture, then they don't belong here and should be deported.



Again, you're the only one who hasd voiced hate for whites as a sweeping whole, and even gloated about how hispanics are taking over.

I've only criticized those who do not assimilate, and those who are hostile to the United States and its existing culture. Period. The end.



My scornful opinion of you has nothing to do with your race. It has to do with the fact that you're openly cheering for the other side, against the United States.



You just made that up out of thin air. Those are your ideas, not mine.



My ideas are common sense, and the standard set down by George Washington and Ben Franklin, who were concerned about allowing too many germans in the country, or allowing them to immigrate too concentrated in an area. They felt a need to spread them out, so they would assimilate.



Yes. Hispanics were about 3% of the U.S. population in the 1970s.
By the 1980s, hispanics were 6%.
Hispanics are currently about 15%, using your own quoted numbers.
Hispanics are expected to reach 25% (double the already high numbers) by 2040.

And yet you don't see that as an invasion. It is a formula for balkanization and separatism. It is national suicide.



As I just statistically established, it is an invasion!

Unquestionably.
In terms of numbers. In terms of radio and TV stations switching to spanish-only programming. It is unquestionably a cultural invasion, as well as an invasion in sheer numbers of immigrants, both legal and illegal.



No.
You keep trying to make this racial. But it's not about race, it's about lack of assimilation, that is de facto invasion.

I don't care whether someone is hispanic or Arab or european, so long as they assimilate and contribute to the United States. Some of the nationalities that assimilate the best into U.S. culture, who have the lowest ratios in gangs or prison, have the lowest high school dropout rates, who pursue higher education at a high rate, and who have very low ratios of welfare usage or imprisonment include Koreans, Phillipinos, Chinese and India. These I would gladly welcome over more Mexicans, who have high ratio that end up subsidized by tax dollars.

But I have no problem recognizing that many hispanics do assimilate and contribute to our culture. Many hispanics are fighting and sacrificing in our military, and have since Texas' independence in 1836. And pursuing careers and higher education.

It's not about race for me. You slanderously allege it's about race, to distract from my point.

And when you've done that, I've won the argument, because you have to use deceit to try and disprove the obvious truth of what I'm saying: that immigrants of any nation are a threat to the United States if they don't assimilate. And that is an opinion I share with George Washington, Ben Franklin, Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy.



That's yet another factless attept on your part to slander me.

You know nothing about me. You ignore that I've stated many times that I not only date non-white women, but that many of my friends are non-white or foreign nationals. My closest friend is from Argentina.





When I sense an anti-white hostility from minorities, I similarly back off. I initially make an effort to break the ice and get past it. But if they don't warm up, I similarly ignore them and reciprocate the same attitude they've given me.

More troll remarks, that smear with "fear, racism, hatred" labels, to mask that my arguments are about assimilation, not race.

You also ignore the statistics that confirm what I said. That it is in fact an invasion.

"Multiculturalism" is not occurring, hispanic rise to dominance of American culture is occuring. Balkanization with loyalty to hispanic culture taking root in place of loyalty to the United States is occurring, with the push toward bilingualism and advocacy of illegal immigration, where hispanic voters threaten any politician who would oppose illegal immigration, or would end welfare benefits for illegals. These hispanics, whether legal or illegal, are a hostile anti-American force within the United States, that acts against our national interests.

You've bought into the myth of Native American genocide. Over 90% of Native Americans who died, died of disease, not from genocide. And there are about as many recorded incidents of indians killed as there are of Europreans killed by indians.

As I've said often, my ancestry is English, Scottish, Irish, German, Dutch... and Cherokee. I'm a fully europeanized Native American.

Many Native Americans are fully assimilated Americans. When Europeans came to the Americas, native Americans were mostly hunter-gatherers, on the verge of starvation. They were involved in bloody tribal warfare. The Incas, Aztecs and Mayans practiced human sacrifice. And the Carib indians and many other tribal groups practiced cannibalism. Not one tribe in the Americas had invented the wheel. This is what Europeans interrupted.
Speaking as someone with Native American blood, I'd say those of us who assimilated are far better off.

Similarly, a black scholar about 15 years ago said that descendants of black slaves in the U.S. are about 50 times better off as American citizens than the blacks who remain in the former slave-trade nations of Africa, in terms of economic prosperity, healthcare, life span, safety from violence, and other factors.

Weighing the positives and negatives, I'd say that whites/Europeans, including the United States, come out ahead on the balance sheet you raise.

I'm proud of who and what I am. I just don't feel like being photo-shopped into gay porn images and so forth. I've seen the delightful treatment you give Pariah, G-man and others.

I have nothing I need to prove, or be ashamed of.

Let's face it. If people want to come here, learn the language and work hard, I think we'd all welcome them. Hell, we'd probably all be in favor of amnesty and/or open borders.

But time and time again we hear that isn't what's happening.

I don't think it's xenophobic or racist for WB, or anyone else, to expect that the current wave of immigrants follow the same procedures as past waves from places like Italy, China or Germany.

Thank you for providing statistics that prove my point.



And beyond even that high increase, the hispanic population in the U.S. is expected to double to slightly over 100 million in the U.S., or 25% of total U.S. population.

As I said, many hispanics contribute greatly to the United States, as scientists, physicians, engineers, business owners, etc.

But statistically, more than any other immigrant group, hispanics (primarily Mexicans) end up as high school dropouts, in gangs, in prison, or on welfare. And advocate and enable illegals to enter the United States. In opposition to American national interests.

I'm disappointed in you, Snarf. I've always gotten along with you on these boards, and I've never joined in attacks on you.

I don't know why you'd join with the trolls and launch a personal attack on me. If you want to respectfully raise a legitimate point or counterpoint, okay. But character assassination and personal attack just tosses your opinion in a dismissive category.

Wanting to have our existing immigration laws enforced, and to protect our borders from illegal immigration, and more selectively choose the 1.2 million legal immigrants permitted to enter the U.S. every year, so they don't end up on welfare or in our prisons, is neither closed-minded or xenophobic. It's informed.

wondy, it is about race. i remember one thread where you even slipped up and said the problem was the white race was being over run. And did you ever wonder if maybe immigrants might feel more comfortable in our country if there weren't people like you railing about how big a threat they are?
it's like a self-fulfilling prophecy. someone wants to be here to work and have a nice life. people like you then talk about the evil aliens coming to destroy us and that makes these immigrants a little fearful of leaving their close knit communities. then their kids grow up with that fear (which leads to hatred as Yoda taught us) and they have a higher chance of turning to crime because of it. maybe if you unbunched your panties, lived your life, and didn't attack every non-white male out there the world might just be a better place.

I live in what was a very white area 40 years ago, but is now becoming a very mixed area.

There are white, Indian ( from India ), Russian, Romanian, Latin, etc here now.

The neighborhood is also turning black, which is cool, as some of the daddies are cute!

I can hear the people here from other countries all talking in their various dialects in the street, in their apartments, etc.

I don't give a damn who lives here, as long as they don't fuck with me!

I make no distinction when the legal hispanics are actively enabling and encouraging illegals to enter our country and break our laws.

I do make a distinction regarding hispanic immigrants who respect our laws, don't support illegals, and are productive contributing citizens of the United States.



If it were changing productively, I wouldn't mind. But 10% of the children born in this country are "anchor babies", of illegal women who through a bizarre loophole in the law, are illegals given U.S. citizenship at birth, and cost the U.S. billions over a lifetime in welfare benefits, and create a path to citizenship for their illegal parents and extended family.

If this 30% were legal immigrants from India or China or the Phillipines or Korea, who have a much higher ratio of higher education and good citizenship (i.e., not high school dropouts, not in gangs, not on welfare or in prison, not advocating open borders with Mexico) I would see this as enriching the U.S., not draining its resources.



You deal with the fact that I have a legitimate point of view, with statistical evidence to support what I'm saying.
If you want more extensive numbers detailing the Mexican drain, read Pat Buchanan's book State of Emergency regarding the immigration problem.



You ignore, or are just ignorant of, my point. The "white/racist" U.S. captures illegals and deports them, while treating them very well as prisoners. So well that most illegally cross again.

My point is that as cruel and racist as Mexico is toward its illegals, it has no factual basis for calling the U.S. racist for simply enforcing its laws, treating prisoners well, and lawfully deporting them.

Mexico often kills Guatemalans and others who cross, beat their captured illegals, rape the women, and shake them down for whatever they own.



Again, if most were lawful, loyal and productive Americans who respected our laws and didn't act like a separate nation within our nation, I would have no problem with that. My problem is that their general attitude equates to a loss of U.S. sovereignty, a move toward open borders, and realization of trans-mexican dreams of using the U.S. Constitution as a "transitional document" toward the dissolution of the United States, inside a North American Union, which translates to the U.S. treasury drained to bankroll a welfare state for tens of millions of poor Mexicans, that the Mexican government should be providing for, not us.
In your anti-American wet dream of a hispanicized America, the United States will cease to exist.
Yeah, that's some patriotism you've got there.
Whether you fully realize it or not, what you cheer on is deeply anti-American.



I reference you as un-American for your beliefs and attitude, not your race.
Again: It's about who assimilates and who doesn't, not about race. There are plenty of non-white nationalities who assimilate well. Mexicans, by a large percentage, do not.



When you feel a need to make these kind of personal digs, I know I've won the argument. I have facts. You have racist labels and insults that my facts easily disprove.



Wow, how mature. If a six-year-old were here to call you a poopy-face, I could match that level of intellect.

I've never photoshopped anything. I joke around with pariah and have never attacked him. g-man is just as cowardly as you and hasn't posted a picture of himself so no one has photoshopped him either.

You fail again.

Of course not. That might qualify as a "useful" skill.

True enough. Still, imagine my surprise to find out that even though I was born here, and despite the fact that Puerto Rico is a US commonwealth, that I am somehow part of some "invasion" against America or that being proud of my background meant that I have an "anti-American wet dream of a hispanicized America". One can be proud of their culture and still be proud to be an American citizen - the two are not mutually exclusive.

Oh, and for the record, dating one of us does not mitigate one's racism.

Cowards are people who yell "racist" and other hate labels at anyone who disagrees with their political views, preferring slander to honest debate of the issues.

They don't have an image of G-man's face, so they use his avatar image of Gordon Liddy.

You fail again, rex.

I don't think they are. I'm speaking more of people who refuse to assimilate at all.

Heh. I'm watching Blazing Saddles as I read this thread.

Well, just to play devil's advocate for a moment, the history of legal immigrants hasn't been spotless (or bloodless) either. As I've said before, much of the history of this nation consists of recent arrivals coming into conflict with less recent arrivals. As a person of largely Irish descent myself, it'd be silly for me to gloss over the impact that the Irish had on the history of gang crime and organized crime in the United States. Since we're all human beings and we all like to hang onto our cultural peculiarities, we've all brought our collective cultural pros and cons to America with us. The Italians brought kickass food but also the Sicilian Black Hand, the Chinese brought bitchin' threads but also opium, the Germans elevated the production and consumption of both ground meat and beer to an art form but also brought lederhosen, and so on. All these people groups consisted of plenty of good, upstanding citizens, but they had their share of unsavory characters as well.

I think it'd be silly to suggest that one people group in particular is gonna have a disproportionately high percentage of shady characters. Almost all the groups mentioned above started out with elevated crime rates, not because of the sort of people they were, but because they were shoehorned into crapulent living conditions by the brillions. You can get all uppity and blame The Man™ for that if you want, but really it's just the ups and downs of Coming to America™. The difference is that legal immigration processes give Uncle Sam some control over those numbers, and to some extent those living conditions. Whenever you have an unmoderated flow of any people group into any region, it becomes next to impossible to prevent yes, demographic shifts, but also abrupt imbalances across innumerable little economic seesaws.

You can't balance an equation if the variables won't sit still. Except in calculus, but I haven't figured out how to get all those little symbol thingies to work with UBBCode. The issue I have with legal immigration has less than nothing to do with who's coming in. I mean come on, my brother's Guatemalan, half my mom's side of the family comes from either native Spanish-speaking places or native Portuguese-speaking places, and so on. My concern is that it's been so incredibly difficult over our nation's history for us all to find a balance, and the squabbles that have erupted have often been bloody in the extreme, that any time any group of people charges in with absolutely no mechanism to regulate their numbers or conduct, all hell is gonna break loose.

You can hispanicize my America the Beautiful any day of the week. Twice on Saturdays.

"They" being...? Mexicans? All Latinos? I'm not slammin' you , G, just asking for a bit of clarification.

See? I'm trying to be serious here and you had to make me laugh...

That wasn't directed at you, harlequin.

That was directed at Whomod's remarks, gloating about the fact that hispanics are becoming dominant in California and elsewhere.

If you don't endorse or advocate open borders, my remarks don't apply to you.
If you don't support welfare benefits and driver licenses for illegals, my remarks don't apply to you.
If you don't have sympathy for illegals greater than the desire to enforce our nation's laws, my remarks don't apply to you.
If you're not a card-carrying member of La Raza, who sees the Constitution as a "transitional document", toward an open borders North American Union, which would mean the dissolution of the United States, then my remarks don't apply to you.
Someone who is an Irish- or German-American who advocates these things would be equally suspect.

I'm proud of my English, Scottish, Irish, Dutch, German and Cherokee ancestry. But I am first and foremost an American, and my first loyalty is to the United States, its culture and its sovereignty. I don't have a German or Irish flag I wave outside my home. Whether you are from Puerto Rico, Ireland, Germany or Outer Mongolia, I think that is a reasonable patriotic expectation of every U.S. immigrant and citizen.

Immigrants who come here and engage in the kind of behavior I described and/or alluded to. It would obviously include a large number of Mexicans (but not all) just because of the current border situation, but could also include people from non-Latin countries.

Making up lies doesn't make you right. Try to face reality sometime. You might like it.

The short answer:


Again, it's not about race for me, it's about assimilation. Who assimilates, and who doesn't. Who respects our laws and culture, and who doesn't.

What you posted above has not even the slightest resemblance to anything I've said.
What I've said is we're a European nation founded on European culture and ideas, and on Christian principles.
And that as we have an increasingly large non-European population, we run the risk of having our culture, and our Democratic government itself, at risk of being overwhelmed by non-European interests. Such as La Raza. Such as loss of sovereignty inside a borderless North American Union. As hispanic immigration has increased, we've seen the kind of corruption and election fraud that occurs in the latin american countries we are receiving massive immigration from. And spanish immigrants who push for spanish as a second language, instead of learning english, and assimilating into an english-speaking culture.



People like you put words in my mouth, and create totally misrepresentative scenarios like this, when you haven't got the stones or the intelligence to make a case for your opinion based on the issue. You distort the true issue with stereotypes of alleged "fear, hatred, etc." to deliberately bypass that my arguments are about assimilation, not race.

True.
This was the situation for 200 years. All national/racial groups have had their rough edges, before assimilating.
But...

The problem is, in the current (post-1965) liberal mindset, assimilation is now labelled as "racism". Which means assimilation that would have previously been encouraged, and immigrant populations absorbed, are now discouraged. Which leads to separatism and eventual balkanization. In this atmosphere, immigration becomes colonization and invasion.



Okay, here you add not only the assimilation of legal immigrants, who are not pressured to assimilate, but the massive (estimated 20 million now) illegal immigrants, that hide among and are enabled by legal immigrants.

It is difficult to prevent illegal immigration even when there is pressure to assimilate. How much more difficult, when a liberal ideology undermines assimilation, and even questions the rightness of removing illegal immigrants?
It's insane.



Exactly. There have never been more immigrants entering the country, and yet those who are pro-immigration, and even pro-illegal-immigration, fail to see the urgent need for a flow mechanism, and just expect things to magically work out, despite the clear explosion across our borders.
We have about 5,500 illegals crossing our borders every day. That's an invading army, crossing into our nation, every day. Among them thieves, murderers, gang-members, drug dealers, and increasingly, potential muslim terrorists (the number of "non-Mexicans" predominantly muslims, caught illegally crossing the mexican border, has gone from 50,000 before 9/11 to 150,000.)

Hello, I just thought I'd show up and Mexicanize this thread a bit. Carry on.

well then let's just let the legit mexicans across and shoot the non-mexicans.

except the guatemalans. damn they can cook like motherfuckers.

except my brother. he burns water. it's really kind of disappointing.

You worked hard on that post, registered here at Rob's Flippin' Boards, and had the common courtesy to write in English.

That's the way to do it.

But I also worship Axototl the Mayan Manfish God, instead of the proper Amarican deity.

Oh, they'll love ya all the same! Hey, let's put up an Axolotl shrine instead of a 'holiday tree' this lovely holiday season!

That's the Thanksmas spirit!

There's a difference between being proud of one's culture and outright shoving it down other peoples' throats; I'm sure you're proud of being Puerto Rican *cough*Godknowswhy*cough* but your family wasn't arrogant enough to not think it important to learn English. I had to work in Garden Grove, CA for a long time and it's basically the Asian capital of Orange County. Every other Asian I met on the job was an immigrant who refused to speak English. The reason they were able to get away with it is because all of my supervisors were smart enough to learn English themselves.

On a sidenote: A pattern I noticed is that the bulk of the people who refused to learn, and didn't really give a crap if I understood them or not, were Chinese and Vietnamese. The Koreans, Japanese, Tai, Phillipinos, and Taiwanese were all much more respectful to me on average; haven't met a lot of people from Laos or Cambodia, so I can't comment.

Some say that Quetzacoatl will return soon...

It just so happens that some of those diseases just "happened" to be on blankets given to the Indians by the friendly white settlers.

And Freemason doctrines.

It could only have been deliberate biological warfare. Gotta keep those dark people down, after all!

I guess the Indians were just ungrateful. It's like they got free rpg downloads, or sumthin.

it was deliberate. they were trying to clear the land. history books that are taught in public schools are notoriously in error on American History to the point that they're little more than propaganda. For the first hundred or so years of America we spent most of our federal budget on fighting Indians. The official policy was that the land was ours by right of god and therefore we were justified in herding and killing them off "our" land. That's where concentration camps came from. Hitler got the idea from our Indian solution. It was only once the Indians were thinned out and not a concern that we lightened our views.

Ironic sentiment coming this close to Thanksgiving.





Sorry, you don't get to twist my words and then declare the argument over. As much as you'd like.

I've already said that the ONLY people I have a problem with are nativist xenophobes like you. And sorry, but you're not representative of the majority of whites. As for my "gloating" that's just me riding your immigrant based fear. Which I can because frankly your arguments sound silly and completely unoriginal. All these assertions and claims of invasion, no desire to assimilate, wanting to use our national resources, trying to take over, all these are as old as the country itself and have been used on every large group of immigrants from the Chinese, to the Italians, to the Germans and even to Irish CATHOLICS. And in each case all the claims and hatred and suspicion was completely untrue and unfounded.




Um.. "the other side"? Is a war taking place? man, you are sooo wound up by all the hatred and rhetoric out there. Always you fear something. Whether it's the immigrant, the Muslim, the Liberal, the feminist.. There is always someone at the door ready to obliterate your way of life. Tell me, with all this paranoia, how the fuck do you sleep at night?




Cool! when do the relocation's take place? I want to move in near you! Yes, I'm being facetious. Because your examples of past sentiment or desires frankly won't fly anymore so I have to wonder at why you even dare to dream your weird Nativist dreams in the 1st place. And that underscores this entire thread. The entire futility of your railings. Barring mass deportations and stripping citizenship to millions, Hispanic growth will occur whether you want it to or not. LEGALLY.

Frankly, you can rail against Mexicans all you like. But it's funny that this sort of rhetoric only gets superheated every 4 years and then, like gay marriage or abortion or some other wedge bullshit, it quickly dissipates to be forgotten even by the very people who were super heating the rhetoric and were elected or re-elected to do something about it. At least until the next election cycle. That's manipulation using fear and hatred. And it's uncanny how you're always at the head of the line ready to take what these people are swilling.




No. It's a formula for more Americans. You just don't want to face that fact that these Americans may not look like you.




So when I move in next to you, can I take you prisoner then?



Did someone take over your FOX affiliate and replace Bill O'Reilley with Don Francisco? Of course not. But you, in your weird paranoia, think that stations that cater to the immigrant population are a BAD thing. No, they mustn't be entertained in the language they know TODAY, they must be forced Clockwork Orange style to watch Lou Dobbs lecture them on how they must learn English ASAP!

Frankly as a kid, i HATED Spanish language TV because it was cheesy and low budget and not every entertaining. Plus I knew English fluently so I could watch English language shows. My parents however were slower to learn as most adults are. But eventually they watched the same shows I did. IN ADDITION to the shows they liked and grew up with. But no, to you, it's refusal to "assimilate" and a threat to ABC and NBC remaining to provide English programming.




First you say this...



.. then you say that....



I'm guessing in order to sugar coat your earlier rejection of Mexicans as a group..



Oh but it is. It's your ENTIRE point.



How long did it take the Chineese to assimilate in the 1800's? The Italians?

Nativists objected primarily to Roman Catholics (especially Irish American) because of their loyalty to the Pope and supposed rejection of American ideals. Oh man does that sound familiar to your rants.

From the 1840s to 1920 German Americans were distrusted because of their separatist social structure, their opposition to prohibition, their attachment to their native tongue over English, and their neutrality toward the war in World War I. And where is that society today? Assimilated? Of course.

Fear of low-skilled immigrants flooding the labor market was an issue in the 1920s (focused on immigrants from Italy and Poland). Assimiated or did they "take over" the country and the labor market?

The Chinese spent DECADES distrusted, holding down the most menial jobs, and living in tight knit immigrant communities (Chinatown), and speaking primarily in their native tounge before they finally assimilated into the larger society. As with your Mexican threat, they too had gang issues, as did many other immigrant communities which date back to the Irish canal gangs (1840s), Chinese gangs (tongs) in 1880s, Italian ("Mafia") (1890- present). Did all these people destroy your way of life?

Your song is an old record.



So?
You make this dating of non-white women to be some mystical totem against being called a racist or something. I don't care who you date. As I said before the measure of acceptance (because the word "tolerance' to me is frankly insulting bullshit) is not in the pretty foreign women that might catch your eye but in the ugly women, the MEN, the old people and how you interact with THEM as a collective.

As for Argentina.. I used to enjoy Argentinian MTV immensely in the early 1990's. That was part of that "Spanish language TV" you were railing about above. Because see, I'm a bit of an anglophile and Argentinian MTV was the one U.S. broadcasted station that actually showed the kind of music that I was into. While the U.S. was deep in that bullshit "grunge" craze to the exclusion of anything else, Argentinian MTV actually played TONS of britpop, shoegazing, Techno, and other EUROPEAN style music.

My point? Seeing a lot of their shows on that station, it was abundantly clear that Argentinians are a lot closer to Europeans than they were to Latin Americans. Something that was reinforced when I actually met some Argentinians. And yes, they tend to think they're more Caucasian and not Hispanic. In a very elitist way in fact. In my experience of course. So I'm guessing that is why you warm to them so well.

Like I just mentioned in my response to WB, those groups took decades, some MANY decades to fully assimilate into the larger American culture. With the U.S. hispanic population, you're talking about an immigrant wave that pretty much began in the 1970's and peaked in the mid '80's. And as those Census figures show, success and integration is occurring. My problem with WB's rhetoric rests in the fact that to him, these sorts of integrations have to happen immediately and orderly or else he thinks he's being invaded.

Oh please.

You yourself already admit that these "Americans" do not keep nor care for American ideals/practices, so it's a little fuckwitted to say they're not making a point to invasively change our culture--Especially when they openly and blatantly divorce themselves from it.

Man, your generalization and contempt is just oozing there. So you mean to tell me that you think that illegal immigrants, ALL of them, or even a majority of them, are poring thru the border to go on welfare and to break the law rather than to seek work? Frankly that's bullshit and if you don't know it, then you're more clouded by xenophobia than I thought.





Again. Illegal immigrants are coming to this country to spend their lives on welfare. Man, you sound like some asshole politician trying to get elected. Quite honestly I think the children of illegal immigrants SHOULDN'T be given automatic citizenship. But that's the Constitution for you. If it bugs you so much maybe you should devote your energy to try to amend it.




Because he's an expert? More likely he's another scared white man, just judging from some of his TV appearances on the subject.




Uh huh.... But you see, I don't care. I don't care what Mexico says. I don't care what Mexico does. I don't even know why you bring it up. Do you think I have some allegiance to or even have any interest in what the fuck Mexico does or says?




Talk to the Europeans. they're doing quite well under The European Union and last I checked, England and France were still there. But again, I don't give a fuck about any North American Union either. Did I ever express any interest in one?

I'm sure there' some fringe group out there who advocates dissolving the Constitution and making some Mexican super-state out there. Just like there are UFO enthusiasts/nuts somewhere who are ready to claim this planet for the Galactic Federation. Again, so what? You have this stupid habit of trying to attach the desires of the most fringe crazies you can find, to the entire Mexican immigrant population in general. Which to me only shows how ill informed you really are or how extreme and dishonest you are to drive home your hatred of Mexicans.




I've addressed this. Populations assimilate according to their own timetable, not yours. You may want people to jump to your beat but frankly, who the *%$# are you to dictate how fast they should assimilate? No one.





No. You have nativist rhetoric as old as time and you have fear of everything under the sun which is why I brought up your fear of feminists, liberals, etc. Plus it's funny.



No, that's not "intellect", that is wit. I bet you hate political cartoons and satire as well. You sour man, you...

No, they're just coming to this country AS THEY ALREADY ARE.

Fuck!

And many immigrants from the time this nation started, first resided in immigrant communities where they practiced their own language and customs. And from there they gradually work their way into the larger American culture.

man, you guys act as if history books don't exsist or something...

EDIT:

BTW, where did I assert that Hispanic Americans do not want to keep American practices or ideals? I'd like to know.

Because frankly my beleif is that Hispanic Americans can have BOTH. Cultural ties to their roots and assimilation into American society. It's something that as far as other cultures have shown, lessens over generations. I don't think it's some either/or situation.

Well spoken, Sammitch.

I'd really like WB to address your points since they echo my points, only more articulately.

It's not a Mexican problem, it's just the way immigrant waves have always been and will be again. To ignore that WB's arguments have been voiced over and over again with immigrant group after immigrant group in the history of this country is to frankly be blind, ignorant, or dishonest. Or a combination.

And this country has endured regardless of the nativist rhetoric repeatedly declaring doom and gloom and the end of the American way of life.

True or untrue that doesn't mean the practice should be continued--Especially not this day and age.

You sound as if it's by choice. I think if most immigrants had their druthers, they'd like to live in the nice cozy suburbs with most caucasians. Economics of course will factor into that, white flight may factor into whether they integrate with a majority of whites as well. You want immigrants to integrate? Then don't move away when they get there.

Plus the ease of having a familiar gateway to America in that immigrant community will attract people there.

It's not a matter of whether you like it or even whether the immigrant likes it, it's just the way it is.

But really, please elaborate as to why that is a problem with you.

I think the difference that concerns people today is that there isn't the same slow "work[ing] their way into larger American culture." Instead, there seems to be a demand that the culture has to adapt, not the immigrants.

I agree with everything that Whomod said. I thank him for arguing my points way better than I ever could. Wonderboy I think you are a decent guy....I certainly don't hate you. But you definitely come off as rascist on this issue. I'm sorry. The Republicans come off as fear mongererers and disgust me so much on this issue that I am contemplating abandoning the party. I already won't vote Republican in '08 and may even register as a dem form now on.

with that said I also agrre with what G just said too. That will be the compromise eventually. Let them in let them become Americans, but stop catering to them and make them learn English. I don't have a problem with Spanish language programing or any of that stuff....but government forms and street signs and awhat not should always be in English.

Just think....if the Spanish Armada never invaded England they would have been the super power.

Thank God for PJP!!

Holy shit, did this thread spawn...




Damn. When did Sammitch become well spoken and start using logic and common sense?



Excellent points, Cap'n.




I hate to say it, but I agree here. I don't hate you either WB, but when you label an entire ethnic group as "invaders" based on a fringe groups beliefs, or because they're not assimilating fast enough to your liking, its hard to see you as otherwise. And saying you date women within a certain ethnic group (any ethnic group) or that you're best friend is part of an ethnic group does not bolster your case, nor does it negate the fact that your comments stem from fear and intolerance.




Whoa. When did this happen?



I completely agree with this. You can be proud of your roots and still love your country - as I said earlier, the two are not mutually exclusive. But I think the bending over backwards to accomodate each individual group has gotten ridiculous. The city had a class action a while back where we were being sued because on one of our "know your rights" forms we didn't have some obscure language on that form. I'm not talking Korean, Chinese (two different dialects), Hebrew, Arabic, Hindi or Swahili, (all of which were on the forms, BTW), etc., I'm talking about a language that no one - not me, not my colleagues, not even opposing counsel - had ever heard of. But we were being sued because we didn't have it on the form even though we had thirteen (!?!?!) other languages on that form. That kind of shit is just ridiculous.

I think that once one gets here one should know English - if for no other reason than it opens up so many opportunities for people. Knowing the native tongue of the country one lives in should not be seen as some extraordinary request. That aside, I think that most people who come here are looking for a better life - the "American dream" or whatever you want to call it - and given time, will assimilate while still having pride in their roots. But to blanket an entire ethnic group as "anti-American" "invaders" for the beliefs of a radical minority is just fear mongering that ignores the rest of said group.



Indeed. That's what they got for underestimating a woman.

i is edjamacated

That may be a matter of perception also. If you're walking into a Target or Best Buy and notice Spanish signs, and circulars and friendly salespeople talking to a customer in Spanish, that's just business trying to maximize their profits by trying to tap into that immigrant non-English speaking market, not because anyone "demanded" to be spoken to in Spanish.

Not to say there aren't advocates that demand to be catered to in Spanish or other languages, I just think it's not as prevalent or responsible for a lot of what you see out there. From what I see out there, a lot of it is just a voluntary attempt to tap into a market.

And in my experience, the only people who get offended by another language being spoken or printed are people who aren't used to being around other languages. It's like an affront to them for some reason due to unfamiliarity. If it were replacing English that would be one thing, but if it's just an attempt by business to try to separate 1st generation immigrants from their money more easily.

And it's not just Spanish. Go to the Chinese area of town and you may yet hear some Chinese. Go to the Indian part of town and you may read Indian signs and so forth. It's sort of paranoid IMO to think these people are plotting to usurp English. All they're doing is speaking in he manner they are accustomed to. They will eventually assimilate and when they do, they may still converse this way with other newer immigrants. Like I say, it's not a threat, it's just people being themselves.

You obviously haven't hung around the Chinese if you think they're indifferent to the state of current English language dominance. Contrary to what The Joy Luck Club might have you believe, the Chinese are very stringent about keeping traditions and lifestyles. Not to mention, they're the most racist bunch I've ever met.

Don't know about the Indians.



Just to be clear: You don't believe that particular ethnic groups migrating to America keep an invasive and separatist mentality that involves "taking back" America from "Americans" all the while using the phrase, "we're Americans to," to fend off scrutiny?

As I said earlier, many native Americans assimilated to the technologically superior European culture. The Cherokees I am descended from are the largest surviving North American tribe. Other tribes that were more warlike did not fare as well.
There are about equal numbers of recorded killings, of both Native Americans and Europeans, in their clashes. It is liberals who perpetuate the historically innaccurate notion of mass genocide, despite that over 90% died from mere contact with Europeans, who had immunity to illnesses that Native Americans had never been exposed to. Some massacres and mistreatments of Native Americans occurred, to be sure. (The infected blankets Snarf mentioned were a single incident, not a mass-implemented genocide as he implies.)

But again, Native American hands are not clean of blood either, both before and after contact with Europeans.

Native Americans were not advancing culturally, mostly stone-age hunter-gatherers, who had not even invented the wheel. Who also engaged in bloody tribal warfare, human sacrifice, and even cannibalism. Life spans were short for native Americans in those days.
So spare me the arguments that Europeans interrupted some kind of Native American utopia. There are actually more Native Americans alive today than there were at the time of first European contact, and enjoying a much better standard of living.

As I said in a previous topic, according to an anthropologist friend of mine studying the issue, the average Native American family of four here in Florida is worth about 1.4 million dollars, thanks to tribal allotment from casino revenue.

So happy Thanksgiving to you too.





You've repeatedly voiced your hostility toward whites, way beyond what you could possibly twist the most ambiguous phrase of mine to imply.

I can accept that you don't share that opinion of all whites. But you seem to feel it toward quite a few whites. And in many anecdotes you've given over the years, you seem to live for the opportunity to rub your ethnicity in the white majority's face on every possible occassion.
I find it exciting to meet people from other cultures.

But when someone like you comes along and basically say: "Yeah, look at you white people, you're shitting in your pants because we're taking over!" Gee, why would I be offended by that?



I think the ONLY people you have a problem with are anyone who doesn't share your liberal views. And then you feel a need to shout them down, harass and slander them with all kinds of racist labels.

Even in my more moderate statements across many topics, you still twist what I say to conform to your whipping-boy stereotype of what you imagine, in your wildest wet dreams, to be the ultimate stereotype of a white racist conservative. Often in total opposition to what I actually said.



You call it fear. I call it statistical proof from the U.S. Justice Department, the I.N.S., the U.S. Census Bureau, and respected journalists such as Lou Dobbs, Pat Buchanan, and other sources such as Worldnet Daily, and VDare. And even a few stories from the more mainstream networks.



No, the fears were legitimate, but a stress on the necessity of assimilation and resolving the social problems made things work out.

I don't know much about the Catholic plot to control America, but it is certainly true that the Catholic church dominated Europe for centuries (hence the First Amendment, about not establishing a state religion, and not prohibiting the free practice of all denominations)

You say it's the same, and that my concerns about excessive immigration are just "fear".
But as Buchanan points out well in his book, it's very different now:

(1) Up till 1965, the number of immigrants coming in annually were much smaller, in many years less than 200,000 admitted per year. Now it's over 1.2 million per year (600,000 of whom apply for visas while living illegally in the U.S. with legal-immigrant relatives). Far beyond what even liberal John F. Kennedy envisioned as a sensible level of immigration that could be assimilated.

(2) Up until 1965, virtually all immigration was from Europe. Whether immigrats were English, German, Russian, Greek, Italian, Hungarian or whatever, virtually all immigrants were of a shared Judao-Christian background, and had that much in common.

(3) Up until 1965, when a radical brand of liberalism emerged, assimilation was expected, and strongly urged. But now ethnic separatism and outright anti-Americanism, is encouraged. As is a very negative teaching of American history, that combined work to undermine national unity, and instead encourage ethnic separatism.

(4) Up until 1965, immigrants were selected with the specific purpose of who would likely assimilate well into American culture. Since 1965, we didn't just begin third-world immigration (a very different non-European group of immigrants that our nation has never before successfully assimilated), but we began importing third-world immigration in numbers (36 million) that by far eclipse the previous German, Irish and Italian immigrants combined.
A mass of third-world immigrants that are yet to be proven can successfully be assimilated.

(5) After each huge period of immigration, there was a period of very limited immigration, to allow the large waves of immigrants to assimilate. But despite the visible cracks in the system, any call for lowering immigration is, predictably, labelled as "racist" and "xenophobic", despite that it is clearly a sensible thing to do, to insure national stability.



Again, I make logical well-documented statistically-based arguments for sensible immigration policy, and you resort to slanderous allegations of "racism" and "fear", to bypass my points. "Racism" and "fear" is just how you deceitfully slander any valid opinion you object to.



Once again, you toss in all kinds of weird ideas of your own, and try to pass them off as my ideas, so you can label me a racist.

You again say "Nativist" as if I wanted a white-only America, when I have clearly not said that. I said I welcome people of all races, and enjoy interacting with people of all races and cultures, but I want an America where we, regardless of race, have a shared American culture we all assimilate to.

"Mass deportations and stripping citizenship to millions" is again your idea, not mine. Your malicious attempt to paint me as something I'm not.

I find it exciting to interact with people of other nationalities and cultures. I just don't want them imported to the point that they overwhelm our culture.
To the point that they are at more than 50% of the Broward County population, and approaching 50% in Miami.
And also approaching 50% of total population in Mexican border counties of California, New Mexico and Texas.

I like people from Cuba, Colombia and Brazil. But I don't want the United States to become another Cuba, Colombia or Brazil. But the U.S. is fast becoming that. To the point that for the first time in my life I have to almost be bilingual to do business in my own city.
Again: they are not assimilating to our culture. We are being forced to assimilate to theirs.



A large percentage of Americans have always been concerned about it. It is politicians, whose campaigns are funded by corporations who want cheap immigrant labor, who are betraying America, and betraying average Americans, by ignoring the will of the people. I think consciousness of what is happening to our nation has caused a swelling of opinion for the first time, with this recent immigration "amnesty" bill that was rejected.
It's not an "every four year paranoid issue". It's a real issue, and it's reached a tipping point that demands action.



Again you slander me by alleging it's about race. Once again: For me, it's about assimilation, who assimilates and who doesn't, not race.

More bodies in America with foreign loyalties --of most concern, Mexico-- who feel strongly that the U.S. "stole" the Southwest and that Mexico should have it back (and the innate anti-America/anti-white hostility that attitude reflects), a high ratio of Mexicans who enter this country illegally and don't respect our nation and our laws. That 1 in 12 illegal immigrants caught is found to have a criminal record, that 150,000 crimes are committed annually in this country by illegals, 24% of our prison populations, crowding our courts, high school dropouts who end up on welfare if not in jail... all these things make me seriously question whether these are "Americans" or just alien bodies in America.

Many do assimilate and contribute, as I said.

But as I also said, Mexico has the highest numbers in all these negative categories, that indicate, relative to other groups, they don't assimilate as well, and should be given visas more selectively.

With more visas given to those of third-world nations (S. Korea, India, the Phillipines, etc.) that over the last 40 years statistically assimilate better, and don't end up on welfare or in prison.



Half the local Florida stations on the dial --50 percent!-- is a heartbeat away from spanish dominance, and it is hardly "paranoid" to object to this. As I said, with such a widespread Spanish-speaking accomodation in entertainment and business, why should they bother learning English, or assimilating?

When half the radio and TV stations broadcast in Spanish, when they can press 2 on the phone with their bank or credit card and do business in Spanish, it sends a strong message that they don't need to learn English. When the media is half Spanish radio and TV channels, it is well on its way to becoming 60%, 75% or 100% Spanish. It is invasion. And to not resist it is absolutely a mistake.



Half the channels on the dial. Again, it's multiculturalism gone insane. It's a formula for balkanization and separatism.



No. My point is and remains assimilation, not race. In deceitful communist rhetorical technique, straight from the Moscow Central Committee, you're trying to factlessly slander me through sheer repitition. That you rely on slander over facts just proves to me that you're wrong, to the point of being evil.
That is just pure malicious deceit on your part.

There's no contradiction in what I said, despite your sleaziest attempt, not through facts, but through pure innuendo, to imply otherwise.

As I said, Mexican immigrants have the worst statistical numbers for gangs, drug-related arrests, imprisonment, high-school dropout rates, etc. But I said what I did to make clear that I don't think all Mexicans are criminals. There are many who assimilate and pursue higher education, and contribute as true Americans. But in full disclosure, there are many who do not, a higher percentage of non-performers than any nationality that immigrates here.
And for that reason, and for that reason alone (not race!) I don't think we should continue to accept more immigrants from Mexico than any other nation (30 percent of the U.S.'s legal immigration).
There are other hispanic nations that don't have the poor numbers that Mexico does, and we should draw more immigrants from them.






As I said, I'm less familiar with the anti-Catholic fears. But there was a time when Europe was completely controlled by the Catholic church, and many of our nation's founders came here for religious freedom, from the repressive control of the Catholic church.

It's not paranoid or inconceivable that the Catholic church had plans to similarly spread their influence in the U.S.
Or paranoid, given the Catholic church's history (the Inquisition, the Jesuits), to want to insure that was prevented.



Because of a stress on the need to assimilate, that thanks to "multiculturalism" is now considered racist. What insured assimmilation then no longer protects us. Imagine 50% of radio and TV stations in german during the time you mention. We'd be a german colony now.



Because of a hold period where there was virtually no immigration for several decades, to absorb the large wave of immigrants, yes, they were assimilated.

With 36 million immigrants in the last 40 years, where is the logical freeze on immigration, to insure assimilation? We just continue to let in another 1.2 million every year. Plus the estimated 20 million illegals here now. It is, again, not immigration, but invasion. With no end in sight.



Again, large waves, punctuated with decades of low immigration, to absorb and assimilate the large waves. But the assimilation mechanisms are now broken, because of liberal notions of "multiculturalism" and "racism".

The mechanisms that insured assimilation have been broken by liberals, who branded them "racist."




So if I limited my social interaction to just Europeans, I would be a racist (naturally, by definition).

But even though I interact and socialize with people of pretty much every race and nationality, you still somehow manage to brand that as racism, through some liberal distortion, as well.

Nice loaded argument. But it bypasses the reality of my daily experience.




So now you find a way to brand even my Argentinian friends as goose-stepping Aryan supermen.

Again, you assume a lot, and your argument is pure slander. Orlando is the friend I mentioned in another topic where I said we were in a restaurant, and seeing a mistake in the bill, he said: "That waitress hears me talk with a Spanish accent, and she thinks I add with a hispanic accent too." Which shocked me, as have other comments where he felt discriminated against because he's hispanic.

i don't know how to respond to that, wondy. you basically rewrote history to suit your post and political views.

My concern is that all the mechanisms that insured assimilation are being destroyed.

And that anyone who dares to call for the past mechanisms that insure assimilation (greater pressure to learn english, not allowing spanish to become an official second language, a reduction of immigration to allow assimilation of the massive wave already here)are branded as "Xenophobes" and "racist".

No, we just want America to remain America. And sovereign. If you want "multiculturalism", move to former Yugoslavia or Iraq. You might change your mind.

I don't know how to respond to that because I'm either laughing or shaking my head too much to be able to.



Ultimately it's pointless to respond as I've made my points and Wonder Boy has made his all too abundantly clear. It's a shame he's going to spend the rest of his life miserable as fuck. Needlessly so. But that's the statistical reality. He's going to believe he's being invaded and it's only going to be reinforced when 1/4 of the population is Hispanic in 2050. Hopefully he'll make his peace and acceptance with Hispanics by then.

P.S., I can't imagine German radio during the time I mention because German immigration occurred between 1840-1920 and radio programs only became widespread in the 1920s and 1930s.

So you can quote my response to him as well then.

By assimilate you mean become a subclass living with racism and abuse for many years. Having their native culture shunned and being forced to immitate the society of the invaders.


You would make a good Nazi. Justifying a foreign people invading "lesser" peoples to make them civilized. The Indians had their own culture, they had there own way of life. You can't make a judgement call on how they lived because quite frankly they were healthier than the Europeans at the time. Europeans lived amongst animal shit and never bathed. They were literally dripping with disease. The Indians lived more agrarian lives. I can assume from your statements that native New Yorkers are justified in slaughtering and imprisoning farmers from upstate New York because they're less advanced?
True there were attacks from Indians, but the Europeans settlers started it. They were greeted with friendship and then turned on the Indians when they needed more land.


Yes, they had wars before the settlers showed up. So did the Europeans. Does that justify an invasion of Europe? It seems death and invasion is fine by you when white people are the ones doing it.


so? does that mean they were worthy of death? It's arguments where you claim one race is inferior to another that get you labeled a racist. The fact is this was their land. Who cares how they lived on it? Who cares if they had oral traditions and valued living in harmony with nature over how Europeans lived? Europeans were more advanced because of multiculturalism. They had many different cultures trading ideas and goods with each other. That advances a society.
It's funny because on one thread you argue about how mexican immigration is bad because foreigners are coming in and undermining the native culture. Here you support flat out invasions and forcibly taking land because whites did it.




Inquisition, Crusades, Black Death, many many many wars.
Also human sacrifice was in the Aztek culture, not the North American Indians.


so? everyone had a shorter life expectancy back then. Does the length of one's life determine how well and free they can live?


I don't think anyone has ever called it a utopia, but it was their lives on their land. And they were pretty welcoming to the settlers. They could have lived in peace.


wow. that's the dumbest argument i think you've ever used. The whole world's population then was less than a billion (a number not reached until the 1800's) now it's 6.5 billion. China and India have the largest populations of any countries, by your logic they must be the iconic benevolent society for allowing so many people to be born.
There were people here who were killed. Some accidentally through diseases, and many purposefully through invasion and slaughter. Just because they've had a population rebound doesn't justify anything. If you had 2 kids and I killed one of them but you had 2 more, does that make me not a killer?



So? You make horribly immoral points. There are rich Jewish families, does that mean the holocaust was actually a good thing?


no you don't. you've said repeatedly that you want assimilation. so therefore you enjoy meeting people who have different colored skin but are subservient to you and your cultural views.


I think you create that yourself. I've known many people of different ethnic persuasions and get on fine with them because I treat them like people and not invaders. I can see you antagonizing others with little passive aggressive comments that get them riled up and defensive.




the rest of the post is just more of your bile. I think I will leave you to stew in your own bile because I don't have enough meanness in me to blah blah blah.

BINGO!

If I could sum Wonder Boy 's views up in one sentence. There it is.

These are some German words and expressions are used constantly in English. Angst, kindergarten, gesundheit, kaputt, sauerkraut, blitz, blitzkrieg, bratwurst, cobalt, dachshund, delicatessen, ersatz, frankfurter and wiener (named for Frankfurt and Vienna, respectively), glockenspiel, hinterland, infobahn (for “information highway”), kaffeeklatsch, pilsner (glass, beer), pretzel, quartz, rucksack, schnaps (any hard liquor), schuss (skiing), spritzer, (apple) strudel, verboten, waltz, and wanderlust. And from Low German: brake, dote, tackle, Zeitgeist. Or words used in special areas, such as gestalt in psychology or loess in geology. And of course hamburger.

It must drive you insane knowing the German immigration wave caused you to lose your sovereignty. Every time you're in Burger King, you must feel the rage of having to use German in order to order something to eat!

Only in a perfect world. There are more clueless hicks in Upstate NY then the entire South.

well, i'm kind of against the whole murder and violence thing. it's just not healthy for bunnies and kittens and other living things.

Hell, it goes further than that. English is a derivative of German. Here's English- German for many common words....

Arm- Arm
Hand- Hand
Foot- Fuss
Brown- Braun
Bus- Bus

Bush- Hitler

BURN!

Yeesh! These crackers sound like a bunch of assholes! I wonder why the hell my great grandmother felt the desire to knock boots with one. I mean, what the hell was she thinking having kids with such fascists who wanted to drown out her heritage!?

While I'm at it, fuck whitey for bringing Africans into America just so they can be oppressed. It would have been much better if those damn Caucasians left their culture alone and allowed those black people to live much better lives where they were born!



You can't invade land that didn't have any owners. Native Americans had no concept of ownership and no moral perceptions; raiding and seizing was all they cared about. With little progression in their lives, they were not only an impediment to American advancement, but also their own. Without any philosophy and/or ambition, their culture was stagnating and savage. Their tribal mentalities perpetuated friction between most of their sects.

There may have been growing pains and cultural differences, but in the end, Native Americans assimilated with the more advanced culture offering various ways to live healthier. As a result, their (and my) further existence was insured through the actions of the settlers.

In the end, it was to the benefit of both the Indians and the Americans to co-mingle through the absorption of Native Americans.



Aside from using Nazis as your (fallacious) example, do you actually have any practical problems with the idea of "civilizing" another more primitive culture? Certain tribes in Brazil still contract "Kuru" all the time because they refuse to stop eating the brains of their dead. If nearby settlers had decided to interact with them and basically told them that they should cease one of their most enduring traditions, would you feel that a form of oppression? Lets assume those settlers actually forced them to stop what they were doing and then showed them how to live more healthily and, in turn, survive as an intellectual culture. This act of "Nazism" would not only keep people from further contracting Kuru, but also allow the people and their bloodline to live on.



And yet the Europeans still developed more effective means of prolonging their lives through settlement, diplomacy, medicine, and industry. The French aside, do you think the Europeans still live in their own shit?



And yet they still allied with the French to attack American settlers.

In any event, that's not entirely true. When the European settlers hit Jamestown, the Iroquois Confederacy were less than friendly. In fact, they were in the middle of conquering all of the West Virginian Indians in an attempt to gain a monopoly over the Dutch's fur-trade with all the tribes.



The difference here is that the Europeans weren't impeding anyone else's development--Nor were they fighting simply for the sake of stealing and seizing as the Indians did. The Europeans fought for industrial and philosophical developments whereas the Indians were just cannibalizing themselves(in both contexts of the word) for the sake of prolonging their existence instead of actually making an effort of insuring further survival.



Question: Do you honestly think that-that was the first thing on the minds of the settlers when they met the Indians? Lets assume the Native Americans were actually progressive and still developing rather than just prolonging their uncivilized and (many times) violent lives. Lets say they sought improvement instead of stagnating; as a result, they traded and learned from the settlers as they did with the Dutch in smaller doses. If they were more industrious and less centered on the idea of retaining a savage lifestyle, do you really think there would have been so much friction between the two cultures?



Not only are you putting words in his mouth by saying Wonder Boy feels his "race" is superior to someone else's, but you're also mis-quoting history and simplifying Indian culture



The advancement of the Europeans was based on both assimilation and mutual advancement with other cultures. i.e. They traded ideas and knowledge with other people who could actually follow their intellects (see also: The Muslims before they decided to regress into mindless retards). The Native Americans were less able and less willing to be on the intellectual level of the settlers; conflict is inevitable in such a scenario.



Please to note: The average IQ of your typical Mexican immigrant is less than high-school level standards. When they come in to the country illegally or with a dismissive mentality towards American cultural standards, they force intellectual regression on the society they're trying to inhabit. All the while said society tries to compensate by educating them and freeing up more space and money to convince them to assimilate, inflation is growing larger and more Caucasian Native Americans are losing their jobs.

On one hand, Indians and Americans unified (with growing pains) and became stronger. In the other, the Mexican separatists seek second-hander salvation through mooching off America's success and will inevitably collapse the ground that both the Mexicans and the Americans stand on. Two different situations.

On that note, here's an example of a resident and savage culture that's been consistently impeding the rest of the world's advancement for reasons just as meaningless as the Indians':





The Spanish Inquisition was an isolated incident that was not a representative of the culture itself. All the others practiced lesser forms of torture that were no way comparable to the savagery of a bunch of Native American tribes. In any event, Europe moved past it (for the most part) because they advanced philosophically--Something the Indians refused to do.



A war fought over territory and cultural survival. It held more meaning than Native American tribal dominance.



A disease?



You're overlooking the practices of the Mohawk tribe--Not to mention you're forgetting what they did to the European missionaries they abducted from neighboring tribes. While not totally similar in intent, they're uncanny in their gruesome natures.



Well...Yeah. As cultures progressed, they eventually lived longer and longer. Indians were simply not interested in the idea of advancing and they paid the price for their stagnation. The point being that the Indians, on average, had shorter life-spans than the Europeans.



Very few were that welcoming. The Pilgrims got lucky--And I don't mean they scored with the squaws.

Because the Native American paradigm was based on tribal relations and not actual unity and development, they didn't really take any land for themselves--They didn't even believe the lands could be owned.



Earlier in the lifespan of India and China, they were very progressive and advancing steadily until they hit their mutual walls, which is why their society is so plentiful even if their lifestyles are flawed and problematic (and, in the case of China, oppressive). The Native Americans weren't even nationally unified all the while India and China were moving forward with their philosophical and technological developments.



If you murdered the child, it would make you savage and primitive. In which case, you would be a hindrance not only to his family, but also yourself and civilized society. In which case, eliminating you would remove the philosophical obstructionism you encourage as a savage murderer.



The holocaust cannot be proven to be directly related to the advancement of the lifestyles of Jewish individuals. In the case of the Indians however, their good lifestyles are consequent of them integrating with the European settlers' culture and then using its Capitalist ideals to their advantage.



How does the boiling pot imply "subservience?" If one goes to a foreign culture and expects to live there, then that would imply the person moving there would actually be happy with the other culture rather than just bringing the one he's moving away from with him to his new home.



Responding politely to a white person is not actually the same as respecting them. I was nice to a lot of Mexicans I worked with a couple years ago and they were, in turn, nice to me (but not truly comfortable with a white person in their midst--As my supervisor was kind enough to let me in on). One day, they found out that I was against giving illegal immigrants Driver's Licenses and they went back to being as stoic towards me as when I first began working with them. Then I was later referred to as "you white people." Which is exactly what I get for being in California.

You still living in San Francisco? If so, I have a suggestion for you: Try living in SoCal for an extended period of time, get a taste of being the Caucasian minority laborer, and actually listen to what the bulk of the immigrants around you are saying. I guarantee you that what you will hear will not be as good natured as what you experienced.

That's monstrous!

Do you really mean that or are you being facetious?

yes.

Well, that's a relief.

Basically, it's good when Anglo-Americans kills people of other races, but bad when for example Germans do it. That makes perfect sense.

Why the frakk can't I put Pariah on ignore? It worked with rex.

Pariah is a mod...

Using hyperbole to make a point only works when your not the one generalizing.



You don't know that. That's utter arrogance. What if Bill Gates or Madonna took your children using that same line of reasoning?



That's an exceptionally unscrupulous argument. Essentially your just advocating being a bully. Taking advantage of those just cause they don't have a piece of paper saying they own the land. Possession is 9/10 the law. They were there first.

And you make it sound like they were so inferior. They weren't, they were peaceful by many accounts. Valueing life before possession, caring about the earth around them, trying to achieve spiritual harmony as opposed to superfical wealth. That makes alot more sense to me then shallow, callous, narrow-minded guys like you.



Assimilated? What the fuck do you and WB think this is fucking Star Trek? Have you no concept of pain? Are you completely dissassociated from reality that you'd write of years of war as "growing pains".



No thanks to guys like you who would have let the weaker rot and then pick through there bones.



It's not fallacious. It's same arrogant mentality.



I have a problem with people thinking they're so superior they have the right to decide what's best for people who are less "civilized". Did it ever occur to you that there not uncivilized there just diffrent? That maybe people aren't meant to be exactly the same? Who's to say what is civilized and where people should be in terms of society? You? A perfidious scumbag dressed in ethical clothing? Rather let Achmadidajad run shit.



The only thing stagnating is your sophistry. Maybe if the settlers/England weren't so set on there own agenda a more amiable outcome could have been reached.



Do you realize what your saying? Europe fought for power. And whenever someone wants power over another they impede that persons progress.



What are you talking about? It was fought to spread Christianity. Although I don't know why I'm surprised you'd rationalize it. It's the same truculent bullying you seem to respect.

Yeah, I'm sure they'd be happier in teepees in the middle of wheatfields waiting around for a buncha dead buffalo to show up.

Unrealistic? For sure. The only way for Native Americans to have preserved their culture as it was would have been to have never encountered Europeans on this continent in the first place. That means no United States. And while that might make some people happy (I don't think you're one of them), it just plain didn't happen that way. Now we can pout about it all we want, but until Doc Brown rolls up in the DeLorean it's not gonna change. From the initial post of the Thanksgiving thread it sounds like some Native Americans have dealt with it better than a number of posters in this thread. And if you asked most of them, the answers you get would probably be along the lines of yeah, whitey screwed us over, and that sucked, but at least we're not living in the Copper Age anymore! Which I could live with. Groups of people have been putting the hurt on each other for most if not all of our nation's history. We can either have people who weren't the direct offenders wringing their hands about it and incessantly apologizing to people who weren't the direct recipients for the rest of time, or we can attempt to deal with it, put it aside, and all get on with our lives and maybe try to be friends. I know which one I like more.

you can't judge one culture as being worth more than another. the Indians lived their lives, it may have been different than what the Europeans were doing but it was still valid. They had battles between peoples, so did the Europeans.
To say that one culture deserved to be wiped out in favor of a more "advanced" or "deserving" people is no different than Hitler wiping out the Jews to have more Aryan living space.

Uhhhhhhh... who says they weren't happy?

What do you know about it. They might have. There are all sorts of cultures in todays world that still live the way there ancestors did like Inuits and shit. They may very well have been happier without all the trivial shit we tack on to "modern" living.



They should have had the choice instead of being forced to "assimilate". You can deflect that point all you want with this "it happened and it's done with" nonsense all you want but it doesn't negate the point of the evil's that occur when people take it upon themselves to decide what's best for others.

Sammitch also said-



I don't know. THere's seems to be a bit of a contradiction here.

See Sammitch, THAT'S how you throw someone's words back in there face effectively.

Well my take on it is that yeah, it's the past and there is atrocity enough to go around the world over. That doesn't mean one has to just shrug it off and rationalize it. the Nazi analogy works for me because it'd be,,, um monstrous! to say "oh well 6 million Jews were killed but at least they got their own country afterwards so they should be happy about the Holocaust!

It's completely insensitive and sort of asshole-ish. As for the cultural differences, we tend to see everything from a very materialistic POV. What we value shouldn't be taken as what everyone values or what is really important either. We value stuff essentially. Material goods never saved anyones soul or brought lasting happiness. In fact one could argue that it's an impediment to spirituality and true happiness.

Ultimately though it is an academic argument so it's going to change nothing. Still, it is a measure of character and the ability to empathize in how one responds to it.

well at the time Europe had the earliest real cities. They were full of piss and shit from the roaming farm animals. Europeans didn't bother much with bathing or hygene. They had cruelty towards their women and religious persecution.
Obviously superior to the dark skinned people who enjoyed living off the land and being at peace with their natural surroundings.

According to Pariah, France still lives like that.



though I think he was being facetious.

You know, this obsession with France needs to stop. It's just not... healthy.

All I know is I'd better I'd better not hear any bitching out of Sammitch and Pariah, when my plan to enslave all the worlds morons and beat some sense into them so they can assimilate to my superioriy, comes to fruition. No matter how much "growing pains" they have to endure.

[/quote]
but you're bringing up the style of life that the Indians lived. So it is necessary to compare the two cultures at the time.
You and wondy act like there was some golden age European Utopia and they came here to create some wonderous perfect society and the dirty savages got in their way.
What it really was was several nations exploiting America for its resources with little to no concern for the indigenious people. They brutalized, and victimized the native populations justifying it by their belief that the natives were less than human.
It's one thing to say it happened get over it and move on, but to justify it and make it seem like killing them off was moral is beyond grotesque.

Figures.

So, despite he's the most hated person on the boards, it's decided that he's a mod for, I dunno, the Arcade forum because he knows games or some shit.

I don't think Pariah realizes that "assimilate" doesn't mean 90% killed off. The official US gov. stance on Native Americans up until the early twentieth century was "shoot on sight." that's hardly assimilation or living together in advancement.

and "growing pains"? someone needs to learn about the Trail of Tears. this ain't no sitcom, kids.

I've been trying to get Pariah fired for months now. I would replace him of course. If you think this is a good idea, send Rob a private message or ten!

while i remain the most popular non-mod here.

Last I checked, Hitler starved his own people. Tell me how that's comparable to a generations long friction between the Americans and the culturally-opposite Indians?



Who's generalizing now? It's not my fault white people are the scum of the universe; I'm just telling it how it is you know.



That's what I just said! Americans shouldn't have taken the Africans to America. They would have been much happier where they were.



You see--That's just the thing: Possession wasn't 9/10 of the law, because there was no law there in the first place. Everyone there was too busy isolating themselves and steadily killing each other to form any national sovereignty. In that right, the militant French and the Indians were exactly alike (sans advanced ways of living).



Philosophically and technologically, they were indeed inferior. They had no advancement and "becoming one with nature" wasn't allowing them to live longer as the European lifestyles allowed the Anglos to. Therefore, it is empirically appropriate to conclude that they were culturally inferior as well.



I'm sure you watched Into the West and The Last of the Mahicans many times, but that doesn't make their ceaseless flattery true. Before you try and say they cared very little for "possession" and "superficial wealth" you should read up on the raiding parties they conducted on their own tribes and their fur-trade with the Dutch.

And yes, they were very spiritual, but last I checked, it was that same spirituality that led to religious idols that were particularly evil in nature; some animals they interacted with were seen as almost demonic in nature (plus there was the traditional scalping). Last I checked, that's exactly what people like yourself hate about Christianity: The fact that it includes belief in things like Satan and Hell rather than just love and God. That doesn't sound like your definition of "spiritual harmony" to me--In fact, not all tribes had the same beliefs or patron spirits, so I'm a little confuse as to what you mean.



I realize that liberals like to demonize the word "assimilate" and refer to the Borg, but if you'd please to note: It's a very utilitarian word that fits the context. I could say "boiling pot" if you like but it's a bit awkward grammatically.

Yes, my ancestors went through growing pains. There was both suffering and racial supremacy involved, but in the end the Native Americans lived on with the Anglos, and because there was a harmonious end-result, it is deemed appropriate to consider that suffering growing pains.



The only ones I would have considered weaker are the ones who felt compelled to shun American culture even when it was apparent that it was healthier to live in.



The Nazis sought supremacy and they killed their own people. That's not the same as wanting to spread their own brand of enlightenment.

The settlers sought trade and integration. Stray racism aside, you're going to find in any history book that it was the intent of the settler to make Indians into officially second-class citizens.



"Rights" aside, this just makes you stubborn and ignorant. The scenario I presented would have saved the lives of a dying and diseased people and you're actually saying it's better to die than to resort to a more advanced way of living so as to prolong peoples' lives. You're so concerned with my lack of humility, that you refuse to see cultural advancement as simply the most logical course of action.

Nowhere did I say that all cultures have to be the same. But there has to be a similarity in lifestyles if we actually want those cultures to live in a healthy environment.



Sophistry? Huh. I had to grab the dictionary for that one. In any event, there's nothing "subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious" about my reasoning. And you do little to actually demonstrate as much.

If you actually knew something about American history from 1600s onward, you'd realize that everyone had their own individual "agenda." You're just making a very lack luster effort to criminalize the Anglos by using the word "agenda" as a means of implying that they were out to sabotage the Native America way of life from the get-go.



War itself is a necessary function for weeding out dissension and allowing progress. Yes, for the most part, progress was at a standstill, but insuring their way of life was paramount before they could develop anything. The Indians didn't even seek to drown out dissent; they just fought for petty reasons.



WOW.

Read a history book. Figure out that it was the Muslim Seljuk Turks that carried out the first gambit on Jerusalem and threatened the Byzantine Kingdom. Then try to tell me that it was started for the sake of conversion--Especially after the Christian Anglos had already made peace with the more benevolent Muslim Arabs at the time in efforts to share the holy land.

Yes, the warriors all had particular religions (Muslim/Christian), but that doesn't mean the governments fought the war for the sake of religion. It was a territory dispute.

I'm afraid your plan would collapse under the weight of its own irony.

the obsession continues!

you get effort points. style is still painfully lacking, but effort counts for something. at what point was any morality forced on anyone in my post? I think the only attempt I made at actually driving home a point was that if anyone's got a reason to gripe about it, it should most likely be someone whose existence was even in the remotest way adversely affected by it. that said, your 'effectiveness' at throwing individuals' words in 'there face' is still highly debatable.

context. there weren't omnipresent wheatfields where they were before the europeans showed up, and the buffalo weren't dead at the time. not all of them, anyway. from those two points, it should (I thought) have been fairly obvious that I wasn't talking about the way things were before the europeans showed up. there was a notion in previous posts that somehow the native americans should have been able to co-exist without being 'forced' to 'assimilate'. that wasn't an option. when there's wheat growing all over your ancestral hunting grounds and all your buffalo are shot dead to let the railroads come through, yeah, you and your culture just got screwed over, and it was a pretty shitty thing to do. but guess what? it happened all the same. and focusing on anything other than 'what do we do now?' would be academic.

Ummm...you.



Yeah sure.



But there was law. Just cause it wasn't written on paper doesn't mean it's not rightfully there's. You can argue species semantics all you want but they were there first.





So what? They were incapable of deciding there own fate? They needed the benevolent Europeans to save them?



And I'm sure you'd love for us to consider you the ultimate authority on every conversation you grace with your presence. Nobodies saying there perfect but your demonizing them because they were diffrent.



It's not the word so much as the callous and thoughtless idealogy behind it.



Who's hasn't? It's not appropriate it's minimizing. It was tragic what happened. Does that mean Europe was evil...not necesarily. However, we should learn from them and that's not gonna happen if nitwits rationalize there actions with some nonsense about how they were really just helping the poor ignorant Injins.



Your right. Let's cherry pick through reality and rationalize bad behavior just to put America up on a pedestal. That's much better then facing reality.



First off, the Nazis didn't see Jews as "there own people". Second, they thought the everybody should be like them. It's the same vain mentality who sought, at least in part, to make the Indians like them. Same arrogance.



They were only dying and diseased cause of the settlers. They may have been just fine if we hadn't gone to the mattrices with them. They should have had a choice. And yeah, part does think it's better to die then live under then be "assimilated". If India or Russia invaded tommorow using the same "assmilation" logic your using what would you want the U.S to do? I'm guessing you'd want us to fight back. But when we assimilate others it's A-okay. Can't have it both ways. I realize circumstances vary but I'm talking about a mentality of imperialism where we're better so anything we do or have done is okay.



Well then, I'll keep it simple for now on



See, this is where you begin to tell me over and over again how I haven't "proved" anything thereby not relying on actual substance to make an argument so much as blatant denial. Therefore, this is the part I get more leeway to be immature and deflective.

Cause you see, your logic is Sophistry cause it's the kind of logic that can only exist in a vacuum. A vacuum where the was nothing more to justice then the written letter of the law. Where there's nothing more to life then existence. Where there's nothing more to right and wrong then cold hard logic. It's one dimensional absolutism. But I'm sure you'll prove my point for me.



I'm really not criminalizing anyone other then you or anyone else who would rationalize the actions of the settlers for the sake of eradicating any blemish on America's greatness.



Somehow "insuring your way of life" and "progress" never seem to mesh. In fact there pretty much antithetical. I'm sure theoretically both can be achieved but when people are so dependant on there way of life by going to war with people who aren't really threatening it is usually a sign of people who aren't intrested in progress so much as control. So basically your logic is hollow. Plus, you really can't have progress without dissent so not only is your logic hollow but contradictory.



Alright genius, why were they fighting over the territory or "Holy Lands"? Could it be cause those lands had RELIGOUS VALUE.

I understand your point, but how you don't understand mine without responding with an obnoxious response is just plain dense.

This from a guy that once responded to me in 7 diffrent threads with the same quote? Talk about irony.



This statement-



Shows me an apathy towards what happened since our way of life was better anyway.

You really should be less selective in what you choose to notice.

You still presume way too much. Only way you could really know that is if they were there and if they were miserable they probaly wouldn't have fought in the first place.

Yeah, like I said: I'm white and therefore I'm the scum of the universe.



I'm glad you agree that the modern American black people would be happier living under modern-day African governments.



No. There was no law--Not verbally spoken or written. It was chaos. There's nothing specious or semantic about pointing that out.



I'm not saying they were incapable nor am I saying that the Europeans were benevolent.

I'm saying that their unwillingness to do.....Anything, except for attack each other and slowly let the harshness of the wild kill them off didn't really do much to convince the Europeans not to stake a claim and expand. You say that the Indians were there first and that the Europeans had no right to be there, but by all accounts the Native Americans were more like raid/trade prospects than invaders in their eyes.



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).



Whoever said anything about the Europeans trying to help they Indians? They obviously weren't. What I said was that the Europeans probably wouldn't have tried to stake a claim so close to the Iroquois Confederacy if they were both on the same level intellectually. As it was however, the Indians never officially reserved the land and because the Europeans knew they carried a petty tribal mentality that consisted of scavenging and raiding, they were unable to take them seriously on an intellectual level.

The most I've said in regards to helping the Native Americans is that it was in their best interest to assimilate into the growing American culture since their lifestyles would improve a great deal.



I have yet to put America on a pedestal (not too late though I suppose). I am simply saying that, as an entire culture, it did nothing wrong. The reason I say "entire culture" is because there was obviously some general, though unofficial, supremacy issues. At the same time however, I don't believe the Anglos were wrong to divorce themselves from the Indian culture by referring to them as "savages," because that label isn't totally inaccurate.



The Jews they killed were fellow Germans who lived with them on the same level of intellect. The point is not how they saw them, but rather how they were treated by their own brothers. If the Americans had met a different kind of Indian culture that was closer to their intellect and more interested in technology, there probably would have been a lot less friction.



It was only at the point that the American culture got too big to stay completely separated from the Indians that they were given any ultimatums. Telling one culture that they're not allowed to progress simply because another is nostalgic and set in their ways of living is impractical.

The intent of the Americans was not to convert the Indians; there was just very little choice other than suggesting to them that they get with the times.



There is just so much wrong with this paragraph.

First: The Native Americans were dying and diseased before the Anglos showed up. Not only were they "going to the matrices" with themselves, but they weren't doing anything to help their living conditions aside from erecting more tepees. The settlers' tainted blankets weren't the only things making them sick you know.

Second: They had already "chosen" conflict and domination. The Anglos just decided to join in on their multi-tribal fuck-fest--Trading with them all the while.

Third: 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.

Furthermore, where the Indians lacked concept of land ownership, the Americans most certainly do not. Russia attacking us would be considered an invasion. Us pushing the Indians West is not.

Fourth: Americans have never acted like imperialists. You need to get over that. Indeed we have been prideful of our vaster successes than most other countries, but we don't invade other countries for the purposes of 'enlightening' them; Native Americans were given the option because they a) Were in dangerous proximity and b) Needed to advance anyway.



The concept of justice outside of law can only exist through faith. I don't argue faith outside of religious topics.

In any event, I retain that there was no injustice in forcing the Native Americans to assimilate. It is because I'm using logic that I am logically concluding that our principles as a society of lawfully "justice"-based individuals were not compromised in our dealings with the Indians.



Hell, you think I'm just trying to make the Americans out to be perfect in history's eyes? Lord knows I feel we've done terrible things in the past. This just isn't one of those things.



Of course they can't. That's why progress pauses while the wars are fought. But just because they can't co-exist, that doesn't mean they're no dependent on each other. Progress in technology is required for more efficient war efforts while war efforts are required to give society the ability to progress without threat of dissent foreign or otherwise.

However, I think it's interesting to not that as soon as humanity hit the 20th century, wars actually helped to further the progress of technology. Germany, Britain, and America all made milestone discoveries because they were so concerned with winning the war. I'm not saying it's a constant mind you, but it's interesting to note.



Based on what do you make such a conclusion? Academics and dialectics may be good as food for thought or theoretical politics, but what evidence can you offer up that tells me it doesn't generally slow society down?



Fine. But if you're going to use that as a mediator, the Islamic Seljuk Turks were the only ones fighting a holy war since they were the ones who took Jerusalem and Europe only retaliated after Emperor Alexius asked them for help.

I'd like to accept your hyperbole Grimm. But you're too much of a tool to take seriously. If you'd offer up a source, maybe things would be different. But you didn't and so here we are.



I didn't and wouldn't ever vote for Andrew Jackson if I had-had the chance. As far as I'm concerned, that entire mess was solely on him. And I say that because there was an overwhelming number of Anglo Americans who were against the bill that caused it.

The Cherokee (who I'm descended from) that were forced out of Mississippi had already assimilated and were keeping up to date on the technology developed by the Anglos; they were well on their way to meshing with them. The catalyst for that signed bill was a mandate put in place to keep the Anglos from being harmed by the still existing militant Indian tribes (hence your "shoot on sight" reference). The mandate couldn't exactly be called a leftover relic, but it was a retarded and illogical technicality used by Andrew "Old BASTARD Hickory" Jackson to force out Natives indiscriminately--Which missed the point of their desired 'assimilation scenario' completely. He was so concerned with them originally being from tribes that he didn't bother to look at their progress and realize the bill didn't apply to them any longer since they moved away from their savage lifestyles.

Thanks for the effort and the advice!

I try not to presume what's best for others. Especially when I've never been to Africa.



Yes there was. They had concepts of right and wrong. They were capable of, and often had, peaceful relations with eachother and the settlers. It was not chaos. I'm sure there were conflicts and wars but if that makes for chaos then the whole world is chaotic. Especially these days.

You know I've been reading around places like this-

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0825127.html

and it essentially I'm finding your full of shit. For example Indians didn't impeed progress (that would be horrible if the existence of a race of human beings impeeding the progress of another. Thankfully we have things like Genocide to take of it) so much as the Colonies decided it was there "Manifest Destiny" to go west and therefore step on the Indians turf so they fought back. I'll keep reading but it seems the result is gonna be that your full of shit.



Yes you are. Your saying they were savages who should have gotten out of the Europeans way.



That's not the point and you fucking know it. If another country came here to assimilate us for our benefit or there progress what would you want to do?



You duck the question then tell me what to do?

This is precisely the kind of jingoistic byas I'm talking about. You split hairs and act like it makes a world of diffrence. Vietnam and Iraq are times we pushed Democracy on another culture which is trying to "enlighten" them. We get to have bases all over the world and go on floats around the mediteranian and pacific rim expanding our power and influence which is imperialistic to think we have the right to police the world. If you want to put your head in the sand fine but don't try and lecture me.



The idiocy of your statement pretty much negates any possible logic. If you take something from someone who had it first it's considered stealing. Not just by the written letter of the law but by common sense. And stealing is considered wrong not just cause it's against the law but because of the Golden rule.

Like it or not it was there's cause they fucking lived there.



I think your a fake patriot who will rationalize America's action or minimize them any chance you can.

I had alot more written but I lost it. I don't feel like writing anymore. I just wanted to hit on the bigger things.

riiiiiighhhhtt. . .

sorry, I'm not the one who confuses genocide with "assimilation" and thinks there's "nothing wrong" with giving out disease ridden blankets to people in the hopes of killing them off.

[/quote]

I like how you consistently refer to the Natives lifestyles as "savage" while condemning other people for generalizing the issue and overall failing to realize that not all tribes were violence based societies. yet you seem to feel that their destruction (oh, excuse me, assimilation) is just fine and dandy because they had different values than the European immigrants.

get over yourself, kid.

Man.... Is Pariah still trying to reason away genocide?

Yeah, doesn't he realize that's the job of the liberals who defended Pol Pot, Saddam and Stalin?

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.

The Anglo Americans were involved in a WAR with the Native Americans both when the French were still in America in the 1700s and when there were territory disputes in the 1800s. That's not the same as committing genocide. In the case of the Cherokee emigration, the 4,000 who starved to death were indeed the fault of the government, but it wasn't murder so much as it was reckless ineptitude.

As for the disease ridden blankets: Please prove that they were given with murderous intent before saying, "in the hopes of killing them off." The Anglos and the Natives both lived in completely different environments and both gotten over different varieties of diseases. Just because the Anglos had given the Natives blankets infested with strains they had gotten over themselves, that does not mean they knew they would get sick.



Like Halo, you suffer the ignorance of thinking the term "savage" is a derogatory meaning that defines someone as being brutish and blood-thirsty. Generally, "savage" is synonymous with "primitive" and its not strictly derogatory unless used withing a denunciative context. In which case, I've been using the term "savage" as way of describing their basic lifestyles and not simply any violent behavior by the Iroquois Confederacy and other assorted tribes.

I'm sorry to disappoint your sweeping opinion of me, but I'm well aware of the less hostile tribes that collaborated with the European missionaries in the North East. I haven't been mentioning them as much as the West Virginian tribes because, unlike the Iroquois, the Shawnee, and the Delaware, they had assimilated much more successfully.



Likewise. Might I suggest that, in the future, you stick to your insulting sideline comments rather than try to confront me head on? Because that seems to be all you're good at.

you are completely fucking retarded.

There you go. Stick what what you're capable of.

if we all stuck to what we were "capable of" you'd never post.

No, but you have lived under Nixon, Bush, Cheney, McCarthy (not sure if you lived under him). Gonna have to face facts that history is riddled with bad people in every continent.



They didn't last cause they were out gunned. Who's to say they still wouldn't be living the same way today if not for our expansion. There are still Eskimo's and shit. That's a fact you keep ignoring. Tribe's that aren't all that technilogically advanced still exist.



It had nothing to do with Hollywood so much as the fact I know your an idiot...so I assumed your wrong.

I had a very basic knowledge of this. Just enough to tell your twisting things with your ideological prism.



Unable? Dube, all you've done is throw out conjecture. It's not hard to refute that. And now I can almost smell the desperation on you to take attention away from the link I provided.



Alright, it's important that we establish something here. I'm about to blow you off. Not because I can't refute your claims but because it's clear that your perception of reality is so twisted there's no point taking what you say seriously.

But you know what...here's another intresting quote from Wiki-

In the nineteenth century, the incessant Westward expansion of the United States incrementally compelled large numbers of Native Americans to resettle further west, often by force, almost always reluctantly. Under President Andrew Jackson, Congress passed the Indian Removal Act of 1830, which authorized the President to conduct treaties to exchange Native American land east of the Mississippi River for lands west of the river. As many as 100,000 Native Americans eventually relocated in the West as a result of this Indian Removal policy. In theory, relocation was supposed to be voluntary (and many Native Americans did remain in the East), but in practice great pressure was put on Native American leaders to sign removal treaties. Arguably the most egregious violation of the stated intention of the removal policy was the Treaty of New Echota, which was signed by a dissident faction of Cherokees, but not the elected leadership. The treaty was brutally enforced by President Andrew Jackson, which resulted in the deaths of an estimated four thousand Cherokees on the Trail of Tears.



You see that Pariah, the part about them being reluctant? The US having to use force to take what they want? That's a fact you can't deny. There was no necesity to us moving out west therefore no need for force.



I didn't ignore it. I'm just getting tired of saying how your rationalizing and exaggeratating.



It's a simple question you keep dodging. I didn't ignore anything it's bullshit to get out of answering. It's a valid comparison. Of course no two situation are gonna be exactly the same but it's close enough.



It does when your using there savage lifestyle to justify genocide and assimilation.



I'm talking about the 1700's I'm talking about right now. Tommorow.





Again, you act like the two can't be alike because there not absolutely symmetrical. It's this kind of lopsided logic that makes me and others think your full of shit.



God bless those anglos. If not for them the world would still be flat and barren.




Is it really that hard to figure out? And if it is you truly are a moron.

I do believe your full of shit. But that's just a hunch.

yeah... he'd never leave the tranny porn forum rob set up for him...

Jeez, listen to this guy. He twists the past to his benefit and he thinks he's a great historian.

Your not so special. I can make shit up too.

When Pariah wise 5 years old Aliens came from Alpah Centauri and abducted him. They assimilated him into there race of morons while conducting experiments on his brain (tragicly leaving him braindead). But it's okay though cause Pariah was a savage who visciously sodomized squirls.

oh, but don't you know Halo, that all those things are merely "growing pains" from their "assimilation" into the culture.

Pariah can apparently rationalize any act into some sort of "logical cultural expansion" at least in his own infantile, self absorbed mind.

I don't get how you guys take Pariah seriously - he's a joke with no punchline. He takes pride in his cringe inducing stupidity, his lame insults, and his ridiculously erroneous comments, all of which are pathetic cries for attention. You can't have an intelligent conversation with a misogynistic, racist, self loathing gay man who is so deeply in denial of his own homosexuality that he's buried himself in the proverbial closet with his shemale pics. And he's so far in that closet that he doesn't know enough to realize he should be embarrassed by his laughable ignorance and staggering stupidity.

He's completely irrelevant.

You forgot sadistic. I mean, who messes with Squirls? Donkeys, cows, dogs, cats okay...but squirrels?

the aliens probed Pariah, and he liked it! he is the gay ass teletubby.

squirrels mean the start of a hardcore match. . .

"Squirls"

I really need to get laid.

Don't say that too loud on these boards. You'll get responses, that's for sure, but I'm not sure how much you'll like them.

Good point. Thanks.

Just lookin out for ya dude.

I think you know...but just in case...I wasn't being facetious.

Uh huh. Sure.

you should try it more often. being facetious. it has its rewards.

So this means you will help me overthrow him as an Arcade Room mod...?

Am I the only one who knows pariah trolls just to piss people off? Do you not get the irony of his signature?

who bothers to look at his sig?

Just because he echoes some..ok, most right wing views doesn't mean you have to defend his defending of genocide.

Y'know, i'd completely forgotten that it was Pariah who was into the shemale hentai. I remembered it being SOMEBODY here on the boards but couldn't place the name.

I think this discussion warrants a move to the "another gay Republican" thread.

Back on topic: What scares Conservatives.



How convenient. I mean, nobody could have anticipated an influx of citizenship applications, right? I’m sure that it has nothing to do with the growing and changing Hispanic electorate. (/snark)



And there it is. It's not so much that they want to change the U.S.into Mexico, which is frankly bullshit, it's that they have the power and numbers to completely obliterate the Republican Party who inexplicably have alienated and angered Hispanics en masse repeatedly. They're in danger of transforming America all right. Into DEMOCRATIC country. And that sends shivers down the spines of the Pariah's and Wonder Boys the nation over. After all, how can you lob "anti-American" slanders when you're (even more than now)the most minor of minority views in the nation?

To Bush and Rove's credit, they saw the handwriting on the wall and tried to reach out to Latinos who were even a few years ago, still a decent percentage of the Republican base. But the far right wingers who fear "Mexicans", will alienate anyone, race bait anyone, just so long as it fires up the nativists and xenophobes and gets them to the polls. All to their detriment. Fitting I say. Goodbye far right wingers. Please provide more heated racial baiting and hatred. It's the best, fastest, and surest way to be rid of you all forever.

Every short term initiative, every election disenfranchisement scheme is just winning the battle but losing the war. And yes, I have to frame it that way because this is the way these people see it. A "war".

All the Hispanic community sees is a bunch of fucks who never distinguish legal over illegal, And American from 'white person'. And they've been repelled and disgusted, just as most Americans of the caucasian persuasion, most of whom don't happen to be paranoid racists, ALSO have been. The GOP in flames.



Writing in the Washington Post yesterday, former Bush Chief White House Speechwriter Michael Gerson described the changes in the Hispanic electorate this way:






In fact it's really tempting me to start a project I've been mulling over for quite some time, a door to door voter registration drive in some of the most underrepresented latino districts in the southwest. Where even if people are residents, you get the LEGAL citizen of that household (usually a voting age son or daughter) to be the voice of the family and get them to the polls to represent the entire family.

It would be monumental and seismic!

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?

Because you're the foremost expert on the subject, perhaps you could do us all a solid and define "genocide" and then contextualize it with the history being discussed here.

I know it's no problem for you buddy.

So, to be clear on the proceedings: I make a fool out of Grimm because he proves himself stupid enough to make claims he can't prove. As a result, he resorts to petty insults that ignore any detailed replies that actually refute what he tries to argue.

Harley realizes that this is Grimm's Pariah-defense mechanism when his ability to respond intelligently has been exhausted through consistent use (or two posts worth). And so she decides to lash out at me so as to back her spam-based conversational fuck buddy with whom she enjoys trading romantic emoticons with for the sake of feeling fun-loving even if being totally unaware of her overall germane and extraneous redundancy. She even goes so far as to deny my individual relevance as if I didn't exist. I suppose denying reality as a means of shunning dissent would be her forte; it's best to live in a fantasy realm where it's only what she thinks that holds merit and so she'll say whatever she wants without actually expanding on the assertions she makes...For example: Feeling that there's warrant to call someone racist and yet refusing to actually highlight the exact words of that someone to show them how "racist" they are. I suppose I should point out her bandying of the word "misogynistic," but basically I don't care what she says about me because, as I already pointed out, I'm not relevant (see also: I lack tangibility; I don't exist; I am a stray figment of Harley's imagination and therefore am not suitable enough to respond to or reply to even if I verbally disagree with here line reasoning). I doesn't matter what I say because I am irrelevant and cut off completely from Harley's intellectual consciousness. Therefore, she lacks any true identity I might be able to identify with. How tragic...But not really.

And then when Harley's finished setting the scene, Grimm feels vindicated to start his usual circle-jerk in the thread with whomever else would be willing to trash who it was that made a fool out of him. Halo was apparently his nearest reinforcement after Harley decided it best not to imagine this thread anymore and zipped away. He went so far as to try and satirically label my arguments in conjunction with Halo. Even though I know he only speaks with him in an attempt to stave off his attraction to me, it's only logical to assume, on a cursory glance, that he collaborates with Halo through insults because he actually agrees with everything he says and the way he says it. Harley must be behind Halo as well since she popped in to say, "Pariah's irrelevant," during my and Halo's little conversation. Logic aside, I'll ask for clarification anyway:

Grimm, Harley: As an example of your exemplary and uncanny ability to separate bullshit from facts, I would like to hear what you think of Halo's performance.

I already know that I (or any other conservative here for that matter) am the safe primary target because everyone hates me anyway, but since we're doing reviews on peoples' expression of facts (or lack thereof), perhaps you could tell me that you agree with everything Halo says and the way he says it since you're not approaching him with the same level of criticism. I mean, it only makes sense right...This guy has shown himself to be the very bastion of truth and historical accuracy, which is why you favor his posts over mine in this conversation. Don't you think so?

And Harley, I know I'm a figment of your imagination, but it's not technically unhealthy to humor your imaginary friends some of the time. So please feel free to answer the question.

Riiiiiiiiiiight...

Gayer teletubby.

You're a tool.

You're fucking retarded.


This message was brought to you by Grimm and his predictable bag of escapist comebacks.

Yeah, I'm forced to agree with Pariah on this particular point. A comparison like that is really going out on a limb and doesn't do much to make anyone look rational or objective. I'm sure there are plenty of you with bugs up your ass about how much the current administration has fucked up, but wholesale slaughter of one's own people by the thousands? Yeah, we're nowhere near there.

For the record your a clueless ass. It wasn't a comparison. A comparison is saying a spider has a bigger dick then yours. The point is bad people are in every govt.

'

You asked me why I thought the Indians didn't last you moron.



It's not an assumption. I just know what Chaos and kraven behavior is and there's no account other then you that says they were complete barbarians.



How is what I said contradictory? I knew just enough to tell you were wrong? What got me into this conversation was your twisted pathological rationalization that we didn't do anything wrong just cause the indians didn't have the same law as we do.



Call it what you want, but it's true. I said everything asshole. But, for example, the Indians had no law.



You used a paragraph from Wiki moron not the link I provided.



The exact words? Really? That's amazing. But I suppose they'd have to be exact for you to make the connection.



*looking back* no I've said a little more then that. Most of what I've said is that your trying to use the imperfection in Indian society to justify what happened. If that's the case every society should be conquered. Especially the England at the time who'd been in a hundred year war with France, Spain, and then the colonies. But your just gonna say that was okay cause it was about progress, which is idiotic. The only good reason to fight is defense.



Which is false. It explicitly says by force. You wanted an example of your conjecture here it is.



Do I think there's alot of fucking space on the East Coast they could have lived? Yeah.



So, I guess the Nazi's didn't partake in Genocide either since they split there time between killing jews and putting them in concentration camps. Look at that, Pariah has redeemed Nazi's of yore. Let's not be hopelessly literal because if the nazi's didn't commit genocide then pretty much nobody did. So, being as intelligent as I am I was able to read between the lines, cut through the bullshit, and find you that link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Removal_Act




But you have. First by ignoring it and then twisting it.



I use the word genocide because alot of fucking people were killed. But if I have to break things down Barney Style for you then perhaps Mass Murder would be better since in fact we murdered alot of fucking indians. Is that literal enough for your feeble mind to comprehend?



Okay, you've answered the question somewhat but you logic is the kind of logic that's idiotic. say Russia is superior, but you prefer you and others prefer your inferior way of life. Kind of like, a country person who doesn't want to move to the city.



You don't make sense cause your an idiot. The U.S wanted to contain Communism thinking it was bad. Thinking everybody should be democratic (a mentality we have to this day). That's where the "enlightenment" argument comes in.



I use sarcasm in response to you romanticizing them. Yeah.



Wow, you really can't comprehend anything that isn't in it's simplist form can you?



I made an inference. Just like you did with "Inferiority complex much" shit.

Obviously the point wasn't they were exactly the same. Point was every govt has fucked up people.

Then again if you two simpleton's want to be literal thousands of people have died in Iraq so...

You really do have only one volume level, don't you? Thousands of people have died in Iraq? From car bombs and shooting at each other? That explains everything! I must really be one of those simpleton's to have missed that point.

If every government has fucked up people, which they do, and that was really your point, you could have picked just about anyone from any of them. I think you were responding to Pariah's post, and you took the bait he dangled, and you immediately rushed in to hurl whatever you had within reach at your short list of most hated conservatives. (The long list would take you years to get through.) Only trouble with that is that in your rush to slay some conservatives and earn your user title, all you really did was make it look like you were drawing a very illogical comparison while simultaneously showing your contempt for anyone and everyone who doesn't buy into your simple little prepackaged worldview. "Obviously" the point wasn't that you were being witty. Point was you're not very good at covering your ass once you've let the venom and mechanical errors fly.

I'm just saying an argument can be made is all.



Preaching to the choir. That's what I've said I've been saying. I used America examples cause Pariah is American.




Then your not paying attention. See above. Stick to short obnoxious post Sammitch. You don't do actual thought well.



Seems to me you and Pariah are the ones rushing to judgement. Your the morons who assumed I meant they were just as bad/evil as Pariah's other example's. And now here you are telling me I'm intolerant. This from a little toad who seldom has anything other then mocking and heckling to contribute? Worst of all you make all these generic complaints but when G-man, Pariah, or Wonderboy do the same your wit is nowhere to be found. Excuse me if I don't take lectures from a sycophantic nitwit.



I'm just glad what's obvious to you is in all actuality non-sequitorial.

So if Pariah trolls to piss people off then what's Sammitch's excuse?

He's an attention whore. Any kind of attention is good for him, good or bad.

Still one of my favorites.

Of course "an argument can be made" for anything. That does not, however, mean the argument being made is sound.

True.

classics never go out of style. even the fucktard agrees by his above post.

paranoid much? you don't care so much that you wrote out entire lengthy paragraphs to state how much you don't care. you really don't see your own stupidity, do you?

as far as Halo, I couldn't care less. I haven't bothered with anyone else in the thread because I just enjoy shitting in your corn flakes.

Don't care? What do you mean "don't care?" I care very much about making a fool out of you Grimm. It's one of my favorite past-times to have you make an attempt at contradicting me and then end up being second-guessed by your own idiocy.

You think I don't care Grimm? That hurts buddy. It really does.

But I suppose that this means your non-commentating of Halo means that you approve of everything he says and how he says it by default. I'll store your collaboration with him away for future reference...Since I'm the jealous type and all.

Quiet you!

Why are you dragging me into your argument with Grimm? Isn't our argument enough that you got to get me involved with this too?

BTW, Pariah



This is all extremely pathological. You're starting to make WB look like a normal person.

Quite the contrary Halo: Both Grimm and Harley inadvertently shacked themselves up with you. In effect, they dragged themselves in. And I'm capitalizing on their retardation.

almost sane even!

Fuckin hell. This is one of those moments when you just KNOW there's something really funny to say but you just can't think of it.

To bad Sammitch choses to you his ability to say idiotic yet humorous thing for evil.

And what the fuck happened to Ray's post?

And Pariah wins again for making Grimm continue his circle-jerk with Halo.

Pathological? Maybe. Genius? Indisputably.

How's him agreeing with me any worse then Sammitch agreeing with you?

dance, puppet, dance.

Pariah...a genius who can't figure out what "fake patriot" implies.

That's rich.

Boy, Sammitch really got under your skin, didn't he?

You draw that conclusion from statement how?

It's a valid question that doesn't insult Sammitch.

But if you must know Sammitch did irritate me. I can't obnoxious trolls who have style and I doubly can't stand obnoxious trolls who have no style.

You seem to have a tendency to bring him up a lot, even when he's not participating in a topic:

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.



No. I asked why you think the agreements they had between each other never lasted.



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.



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).



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.



Okay, that’s one reference, now prove that it’s conjecture by expressing what makes it a false historical reference.



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?



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.



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.”





What you say I said is not what I actually said. Nice try though.

Indian culture wasn't 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.



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.

Aside from the Treaty of Echota, which was a fringe case I already expanded upon as being a screw up by Andrew Jackson, the signings were not generally forced even if they were pressured.



For the next 200 years? Chyeah! Okay.

In the long run, the Anglos unified and secured the entire land for everyone on the continent in the long run; neither the Mexicans nor the Natives were gonna do it, so….There you have it.



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.

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.



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.



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.



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.

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.



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.



So I guess this means you don’t believe they brought philosophy to the new world…



Which doesn’t really say much about you when you’re avoiding telling me what it means.



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.

All the way to the bank.

I'd really like your insight on this matter Whomod. I'm sure we'd all benefit from what you'd have to say on genocide.

insight.

Where's Disco Steve when you need him?

First, alot of those he was participating in the topic.

Second, those quotes are takin from conversations over the course of 2-3 months since I started posting here.

Third, that's nothing compared to the times he's followed me around posting my quotes in some lame attempt at being clever.

Fourth, some of those were in retaliation to his trolling.

Fifth, to keep track of my comments I guess I should ask if I've gotten under your skin. Except I don't give a fuck.

I havent read much of this thread, but Pariah is my new hero!
I wish to adopt him!

Don't get too flattered. It wasn't difficult to put the word "Sammitch" and your username into the board search engine. It only confirmed what I'd noticed, namely, that you like to bitch about Sammitch a lot.

what's a Halo82?

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?



Ok. I see now.



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



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.




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.



See above.



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.



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.



Tell yourself what you want but *actually* looking back it's simply not true.



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.



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.



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 I'm talking about is your narrow minded view on things. They didn't intend so it was okay?



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.



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.



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)



It's the same fucking question I originally asked you jerkoff.



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.



Thinking something's bad is okay. Going to war cause you think others should agree with you is arrogant.



They were evil*



It means I don't placade idiocy. Other then my own of course.



I infer you think your special out of a hunch. Take that however you want.


*Sarcasm was used

Probaly not as much as Wonderboy. Did you notice that too with your amazing powers of perception?

For the record this is another thing that drives me nuts. People trying to pass off the painfully obvious as deep insight or profound acknowledgment. You, WB, Sammitch, and Pariah are the four mother fuckers I argue with most. In fact your the only ones I argue with on this board. So essentially what I'm saying is...no fucking shit.

In latin it translates to the handsome, intelligent, and well endowed one.

ah, irony

Isn't it great? I'm almost flattered.

You should be. G-man when through alot of troube to fabricate, embelish, and twist reality for you.

You know what's great? For all the times you whine about my uncanny ability to call bullshit on you, you forget all the times I try to get you to lighten the fuck up and have a good laugh. Maybe you can't tell when I'm being serious or not; you're not the first to have that problem, and it doesn't at all reflect negatively on you that I'm that hard to figure out. But either way, you really need to lighten up. I mean if I'm getting under your skin that easily, I shudder to think of how you really feel about Pariah.

I'm not that hard to get along with. Hell, I even more or less get along with whomod most of the time, and I disagree with him on about as much as I disagree with you. Ask most of the people on here and I'm one of the easiest people on these boards to get along with, or at the very least not one of the easiest to piss off. Yeah, I call you out on a lotta stuff. And yes, a lot of the time I do it just to get a rise out of you. But honestly, most of the time I'm just trying to keep you honest, dude. Everybody trips over their own arguments, everybody has a hard time dealing with stuff that doesn't conform to their worldview, and yes, even I make spelling and grammar mistakes. It's life. And most of us will call others out on it, and we'll (ideally) have a good laugh about it and move on.

Again, I dunno if it's just because you haven't figured out how to read me yet, but you take everything really personally. Yeah, initially it's fun to jerk you around and see how you respond, but when it gets to the point where you pitch a fit every time I say "oops! spelling error! teehee!", even I get kinda tired of it. Seriously, you act like I'm out for blood on here, and anybody who knows me knows that's just not the case. Face it - I'm not gonna agree with everything you say, and I will from time to time call you out if you slip up. Call it picking on the new guy if you want. But for fuck's sake, man - it's a damned politics forum on a message board! Stop trying so hard to "slay conservatives" and have a decent conversation with the rest of us. You might enjoy it.

And then you'll bleed. Bleeeeeeed!

I don't think you can tell when I'm serious. Which isn't anything knew it's actually very typical. I'm telling you now I'm not as serious as you think and there are many times I crack a smile at something you say. Like yesterday or the day before when you said "I think that endeavor would fold under the wait of irony". That was funny.

But don't try to shift blame on me by saying I need to lighten up. Cause I know damn well that your little hypocritical, implausible, misdirected, non-sequitor tyrade from before wasn't a joke.



See now your just being dramatic. Not only are you preaching like incapable of getting along with anyone but your exaggerating on the relevance of "slayer of conservatives" which is why I changed the damn thing. Tell you what, don't analyze me and I'll be open to the fact that maybe your not a complete toad. Deal?

I'm the original king of random. change the user title again and we'll talk.

What does that have to do with being ruler of the random?

for fuck's sake, jerry, is there a thread you won't touch? you're like the creepy old uncle with an imagination for molestation. except failing to find actual children on here, you'll settle for idiot manchildren instead.

don't confuse the issue with facts. this is non-negotiable.

Did someone get a little upset?

Don't worry reax, you can still keep him all to yourself.

Does he mean ruler like Napoleon or ruler like a yardstick?

napoleon was french, so politically speaking he'd more likely approve that one.

I'm too tall.

I'm sure napoleon used that one a few times.











if you know what I mean.










and I think you do.

pretty defensive there, Cap'n.

I learn from the best!!!

Yes, and you said that Cheney, Bush, McCarthy, etc. were of the same level as bad as Africa's tyrants. Good show.



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.



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.




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).



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.



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.



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



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.”



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.



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.



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.



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 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).



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.



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.



In wars. Not slaughter-fests.



And, if you’d read above, you’d see why.



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.



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?



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.



How stubborn and immature of you to think.



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?



So it doesn’t mean anything and its your retarded non-sequitur. Okay.



Which originates from your feelings of inadequacy towards me.