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

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Okay, that’s one reference, now prove that it’s conjecture by expressing what makes it a false historical reference.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