RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events In U.S. Name Count, Garcias Are Catching Up With Joneses

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.