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


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?

 Originally Posted By: Halo82
Using hyperbole to make a point only works when your not the one generalizing.


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.

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

 Quote:
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.


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).

 Quote:
And you make it sound like they were so inferior.


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.

 Quote:
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.


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.

 Quote:
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".


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.

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


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.

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


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.

 Quote:
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.


"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.

 Quote:
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.


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.

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


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.

 Quote:
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.


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.