NationStates Jolt Archive

I feel that Europeans and later Americans did terrible things to the natives of the Americas. I don't feel that it was a good thing like some people.*looks at dukesberryshire*. But, I think in the end, the world became a better place for it,what with technology and all that. But if I could go back in time and either make Columbus make it or not, I don't know what I would do. There where many horrifying things resulting from that, but also some of the best things in the world too. I'm siding with letting Columbus discover the new world right now because if he didn't I wouldn't be alive...


But I digress, what do you think and what would you do? (PS:You can't change anything but if he made it or not. That's it!)

Discussing this at this point in history is rather like asking "if I could get back the turd that I laid in the crapper last night, what would I do with it?"

Discussing this at this point in history is rather like asking "if I could get back the turd that I laid in the crapper last night, what would I do with it?"

So don't post if you don't like it, it's that simple.

But I digress, what do you think and what would you do? (PS:You can't change anything but if he made it or not. That's it!)
Regretting the past and changing the past are two separate buckets of oats. I'd most certainly not want to do the latter.

All land was stolen at some point, which doesnt justify what was done in America, its simply the fact that people will always find some way to do horrible things to each other if they can get away with it.
Stopping the voyages Columbus would not change the fact that eventually SOMEBODY would've gone over there and started killing people for land.
At the very least, the big native empires in America went out with a bang, as opposed to say, China, which died a rather nasty and slow death. Your average American knows about the Aztecs and maybe a few native American tribes, especially the more famous ones like the Apache and so forth.
The Qing, though? You'd be lucky to find somebody who wasnt a college proffessor who knows who they were. That and the last Qing Emperor essentially tried to sell his country out to Japan.

Besides, Columbus was fairly insignificant in the overall colonisation of America. He managed to get himself into the history books because the Spanish werent about to be beat by some Italian prick who got lucky.

Regretting the past and changing the past are two separate buckets of oats. I'd most certainly not want to do the latter.

And the best thing to with a bucket of oats is make a bucket of porridge.

I feel that Europeans and later Americans did terrible things to the natives of the Americas. I don't feel that it was a good thing like some people.*looks at dukesberryshire*. But, I think in the end, the world became a better place for it,what with technology and all that. But if I could go back in time and either make Columbus make it or not, I don't know what I would do. There where many horrifying things resulting from that, but also some of the best things in the world too. I'm siding with letting Columbus discover the new world right now because if he didn't I wouldn't be alive...


But I digress, what do you think and what would you do? (PS:You can't change anything but if he made it or not. That's it!)

Even if Europeans had come to North America completely in peace, about 90% of Native Americans would still have died. What really devastated the Native population was smallpox. According to Jared Diamond (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns%2C_Germs%2C_and_Steel#Germs)

Discussing this at this point in history is rather like asking "if I could get back the turd that I laid in the crapper last night, what would I do with it?"

lmao

I feel that Europeans and later Americans did terrible things to the natives of the Americas. I don't feel that it was a good thing like some people.*looks at dukesberryshire*. But, I think in the end, the world became a better place for it,what with technology and all that. But if I could go back in time and either make Columbus make it or not, I don't know what I would do. There where many horrifying things resulting from that, but also some of the best things in the world too. I'm siding with letting Columbus discover the new world right now because if he didn't I wouldn't be alive...


But I digress, what do you think and what would you do? (PS:You can't change anything but if he made it or not. That's it!)

I don't know, you can't really tell what would happen if he didn't discover it. Obviously it's regrettable what happened to the natives (and other things that happened because of the discovery of America, like the slave trade for instance). Personally I don't think that bringing technology was good at all (first of all I think you're greatly underestimating the natives technology, and there are some other problems I have with that kind of reasoning). But I also don't believe in the romanticized version of the natives, they did their share of cruelty to each other too, although I guess that the overall cruelty by the 'whites' was far greater. So I guess I'll go with him not discovering it (although, let's face it, it would have happened by someone else only a little bit later so it doesn't matter much.)

I feel that Europeans and later Americans did terrible things to the natives of the Americas. I don't feel that it was a good thing like some people.*looks at dukesberryshire*. But, I think in the end, the world became a better place for it,what with technology and all that. But if I could go back in time and either make Columbus make it or not, I don't know what I would do. There where many horrifying things resulting from that, but also some of the best things in the world too. I'm siding with letting Columbus discover the new world right now because if he didn't I wouldn't be alive...


But I digress, what do you think and what would you do? (PS:You can't change anything but if he made it or not. That's it!)

I would let it play out as it did. The American Indians put up the good and honorable fight. They simply lost due to many factors.

We were more than willing to share our lands with newcomers. If I were to wish for a single change, it would be that we had been dealt with more truthfully, and that the agreements made would be respected.

I would let it play out as it did. The American Indians put up the good and honorable fight. They simply lost due to many factors.

This thread is going to piss me off, isn`t it.

This thread is going to piss me off, isn`t it.

Yes or no, I guess we'll just have to go with maybe.

This thread is going to piss me off, isn`t it.

Stop wasting time and get me my lunch.

Filthy savage...

Colombus was not the first Europian to "discover" America. Whether he came or not, it still would have been colonized. He just started a slave trade.

We were more than willing to share our lands with newcomers. If I were to wish for a single change, it would be that we had been dealt with more truthfully, and that the agreements made would be respected.
What, Europeans respecting treaties?
Pffft.
Why should the natives in America have been treated any differently than the natives everywhere else?
Half the reason Europeans dominated the globe was the invention of 'politics' and the specialized subfields such as 'being a backstabbing, smooth-talking, con-artist' and 'Writing treaties with loopholes that silly native people wont see until all their buffalo are dead and all their children are white.'

This thread is going to piss me off, isn`t it.

Welcome to NSG.

This thread is going to piss me off, isn`t it.
Is there much that doesn't?

Is there much that doesn't?The lingerie thread was a notable exception.

Stop wasting time and get me my lunch.

Filthy savage...

*sharpens scalping knife*

*sharpens scalping knife*

you best be using that to make me a sandwhich.

I we could go back and stop humans from emerging from the primordial soup, should be do it? Humans have done some terrible things to one-another.

I we could go back and stop humans from emerging from the primordial soup, should be do it?
No. There we go.

Is there much that doesn't?

Tim Hortons, fry-bread, Fridays, summer, filet mignon...etc etc.

Yes. There is much that doesn't. Ignorant settlers are a pet peeve of mine however.

you best be using that to make me a sandwhich.

It's a shame you're Jewish, or I'd have made you a Jew.

Tim Hortons, fry-bread, Fridays, summer, filet mignon...etc etc.

Yes. There is much that doesn't. Ignorant settlers are a pet peeve of mine however.
Mmm fried bread (I assume you mean simply bread that is fried, or do you also add a delicious egg component, as some do here in the UK, to make Eggy Bread, best served with ketchup?).

Oh, as to the settlers, fair enough.

There really is no point in wishing we could change the past...but there is great merit in learning from the past, and working to change the relationship between aboriginal peoples in the Americas and the various governments now in existence. Part of that process is understanding truly what misunderstandings occurred in the past, and how those misunderstandings have helped to form present relationships. If we can rectify those misunderstandings now, we have no need to go physically back in time to change things.

This thread is going to piss me off, isn`t it.

Obviously it will.

He just started a slave trade.

He did?

He did?
No, KoL is, once again, wrong on this one. But SSHHHH!

Mmm fried bread (I assume you mean simply bread that is fried, or do you also add a delicious egg component, as some do here in the UK, to make Eggy Bread, best served with ketchup?).

Oh, as to the settlers, fair enough.

Fry bread is fried bannock, so unleavened soda bread. It's fantabulous!

you best be using that to make me a sandwhich.

Sandwhich aaaarrrrrrhhgg!:D

Fry bread is fried bannock, so unleavened soda bread. It's fantabulous!I thought you managed to fix your keyboard...

I would let it play out as it did. The American Indians put up the good and honorable fight. They simply lost due to many factors.

http://smilies.vidahost.com/contrib/geno/rofl.gif

Fry bread is fried bannock, so unleavened soda bread. It's fantabulous!
Aaah kk.

I bet you could make some kind of crazy arrangement involving filet mignon, also horseradish and some lettuce, maybe tomatoes with it, actually.

But aye, what I would call fried bread is basically just bread... but fried. On the other hand, whisk some eggs up and dip the bread in the eggs first, along with some salt and pepper before frying, and you get a particularly excellent dish. Mmmm.

Mmm fried bread (I assume you mean simply bread that is fried, or do you also add a delicious egg component, as some do here in the UK, to make Eggy Bread, best served with ketchup?).

Oh, as to the settlers, fair enough.

Eggy Bread. Aaaaarrhhhhgg!:D

Eggy Bread. Aaaaarrhhhhgg!:D
Why so arghtabulous today, Peep? What's stressing you out?

Why so arghtabulous today, Peep? What's stressing you out?

No Aaaaargghhh! as in Homers Simpsons response to the word Doughnut!

I thought you managed to fix your keyboard...

I made an absolute statement requiring an exclamation mark. Smart ass.

No Aaaaargghhh! as in Homers Simpsons response to the word Doughnut!
Aahhh ok :p

Mmm doughnuts. Gottverdammt, I need to go to the shop soon :p

This thread is going to piss me off, isn`t it.

http://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/welcome.gif

I made an absolute statement requiring an exclamation mark. Smart ass.
I was commenting on the excercise of creative spelling you pulled off there :p

I was commenting on the excercise of creative spelling you pulled off there :p

Fantabulous is a perfectly legitimate spelling of a word that blends 'fabulous' and 'fantastic'. Begone with your attempts to freeze the English language in time! English is a growing, ever-expanding language and if you don't like it, please feel free to jeap off a bridge.

Colombus was not the first Europian to "discover" America. Whether he came or not, it still would have been colonized. He just started a slave trade.

Precisely. Portugese navigators had known about the Americas for decades; the difference was that Columbus did so for a state more concerned with the acquisition of land rather than mercantile success in the form of the Castille.

Fantabulous is a perfectly legitimate spelling of a word that blends 'fabulous' and 'fantastic'. Begone with your attempts to freeze the English language in time! English is a growing, ever-expanding language and if you don't like it, please feel free to jeap off a bridge.
Forsooth! Ye shan't have the last word, wicked wench!

Precisely. Portugese navigators had known about the Americas for decades; the difference was that Columbus did so for a state more concerned with the acquisition of land rather than mercantile success in the form of the Castille.

Are we forgetting the Viking settlers there aswell?

Fantabulous is a perfectly legitimate spelling of a word that blends 'fabulous' and 'fantastic'. Begone with your attempts to freeze the English language in time! English is a growing, ever-expanding language and if you don't like it, please feel free to jeap off a bridge.

"SLANG, n. The grunt of the human hog (Pignoramus intolerabilis) with an audible memory. The speech of one who utters with his tongue what he thinks with his ear, and feels the pride of a creator in accomplishing the feat of a parrot. A means (under Providence) of setting up as a wit without a capital of sense."

-Ambrose Gwinnett Bierce.

Forsooth! Ye shan't have the last word, wicked wench!
Oh but I shall.

I suppose you'd oppose words like 'computer' in preference for the old English terms "andgitol cræft", or intelligent machine. Fie to thee! Fie! A pox on your house as well and all that.

Are we forgetting the Viking settlers there aswell?

They buggered off, they are therefore of no account :P

Oh but I shall.Like hell you will.
I suppose you'd oppose words like 'computer' in preference for the old English terms "andgitol cræft", or intelligent machine. Fie to thee! Fie! A pox on your house as well and all that.
Let's not get silly here =P

Are we forgetting the Viking settlers there aswell?

Not particularly relevant to my mind. Their arrival neither had profound effects for european, and global, history, as did that of Columbus, nor did they expand to a systematic process of colonisation nor economic expansion.

It's a shame you're Jewish, or I'd have made you a Jew.

yeah, too late. Been there, done that, keep the foreskin in a jar on my desk.

Run to the Hills -Iron Maiden

White man came across the sea
He brought us pain and misery
He killed our tribes killed our creed
He took our game for his own need

We fought him hard we fought him well
Out on the plains we gave him hell
But many came too much for Cree
Oh will we ever be set free?

Riding through dust clouds and barren wastes
Galloping hard on the plains
Chasing the redskins back to their holes
Fighting them at their own game
Murder for freedom the stab in the back
Women and children are cowards attack

Run to the hills, run for your lives
Run to the hills, run for your lives

Soldier blue in the barren wastes
Hunting and killing their game
Raping the women and wasting the men
The only good Indians are tame
Selling them whiskey and taking their gold
Enslaving the young and destroying the old

Run to the hills, run for your lives

I feel that Europeans and later Americans did terrible things to the natives of the Americas. I don't feel that it was a good thing like some people.*looks at dukesberryshire*. But, I think in the end, the world became a better place for it,what with technology and all that. But if I could go back in time and either make Columbus make it or not, I don't know what I would do. There where many horrifying things resulting from that, but also some of the best things in the world too. I'm siding with letting Columbus discover the new world right now because if he didn't I wouldn't be alive...


But I digress, what do you think and what would you do? (PS:You can't change anything but if he made it or not. That's it!)

Dude, the Injuns got in the way of MANIFEST DESTINY! Manifest Destiny is like the greatest thing that ever happened, ever.

It's not our fault they didn't have guns and resistance to small pox, they should have developed that stuff a long time ago. They really had it coming for them.

Seriously, if God didn't want us (God fearing white folk) to exploit indiginous peoples and make them do all the stuff we don't want to do at their expense, then he wouldn't have put them on the Earth.

People are all like, "Oh! The Sand Creek Massacre was soooooooooooo bad! We killed everyone!" Well did you know that those Injuns were terrorists, that they were planning to destory Washington DC and corrupt our honest, God-fearing ways of life?

Just think about it.

We were more than willing to share our lands with newcomers. If I were to wish for a single change, it would be that we had been dealt with more truthfully, and that the agreements made would be respected.

What? Imperial European powers treating anyone with respect, and adhering to the agreements that they made with others? Are you nuts?

The European Empires did not treat anyone fairly, did not act with respect to treaties, and were generally douchey all around. To themselves included.

OK OK, I mean discovered by the white man, instead of columbus. Infact, that brings up an intersting thing. What if the japanese or chinese or even the africans got there first? What would have happened?

OK OK, I mean discovered by the white man, instead of columbus. Infact, that brings up an intersting thing. What if the japanese or chinese or even the africans got there first? What would have happened?

Well, likely it would have played out in a similar fashion if an element of the Islamic civilizations at the time. China would likely have opted for the trade-and-dominate (and no, Gavin Menzies is wrong, Zheng He never sent a fleet to the Americas) over a long period of time method, the Japanese were too insular, and the cultural activities of Africa in the area of expansion were somewhat limited, because building large cities in the interior, at that point in time, was quite tough because of the problems of malaria and crowd diseases, so determining how they'd related to the Native American groups is difficult.

I feel that Europeans and later Americans did terrible things to the natives of the Americas. I don't feel that it was a good thing like some people.*looks at dukesberryshire*. But, I think in the end, the world became a better place for it,what with technology and all that. But if I could go back in time and either make Columbus make it or not, I don't know what I would do. There where many horrifying things resulting from that, but also some of the best things in the world too. I'm siding with letting Columbus discover the new world right now because if he didn't I wouldn't be alive...


But I digress, what do you think and what would you do? (PS:You can't change anything but if he made it or not. That's it!)

Well I think that a lot of the natives here were pretty darn evil and needed a good bit of civilizing. On the other hand, there were a lot of situations where whites treated the natives poorly. I think the natives were at their worst when they were fighting each other and in the early period of conflict with whites leading up to the early 1800s or so.
I think that the whites were pretty much the bad guys after that point. I also think that the Spanish were particularly cruel. I really do not know if the French were all that bad with the natives. It is my undstanding that the French were not particularly sadistic or nasty but I believe that they started the practice of scalping by being the first to pay Indians for English scalps. Hmmm I guess everyone was pretty bad. I do not know if all of the hundreds of native tribes were all a bunch of savages (i.e. did a lot of nasty torturing, killing, and maiming of captives) but I suspect that many were not. However, many of the natives were pretty nasty.

My main concern though is the environmental effects. The introduction of the white man has not been good for the environment (although we have proven to be great for the raccoon population strangely enough).

OK OK, I mean discovered by the white man, instead of columbus. Infact, that brings up an intersting thing. What if the japanese or chinese or even the africans got there first? What would have happened?

Firstly, no African state could have done so. Secondly, I recall watching a documentary which suggested that a significant Chinese armada set out to do so, arriving somewhere along the Californian coast. I believe the expedition was recalled due to internal economic or political collapse.

Well I think that a lot of the natives here were pretty darn evil and needed a good bit of civilizing.
You think? You THINK? On what exactly do you base these thoughts? On an informed knowldege of pre-contact aboriginal culture in the Americas? Or suppositions based on ignorance? I THINK it's most certainly the latter, but I'd love for you to prove me wrong.

You think? You THINK? On what exactly do you base these thoughts? On an informed knowldege of pre-contact aboriginal culture in the Americas? Or suppositions based on ignorance? I THINK it's most certainly the latter, but I'd love for you to prove me wrong.Probably on Aztec sacrificial rites, extrapolated to the rest of the natives.

What if the japanese or chinese or even the africans got there first? What would have happened?
More Japs, Chinese and Africans respectively.

You think? You THINK? On what exactly do you base these thoughts? On an informed knowldege of pre-contact aboriginal culture in the Americas? Or suppositions based on ignorance? I THINK it's most certainly the latter, but I'd love for you to prove me wrong.

That is sort of a nasty thing to assume. I was a very good history student in my university days. I was an A- student of History and am a member of Phi Alpha Theta. I also live in an area with a rich Indian history. I also find the Indians to be an interesting topic and I have read a bit about them. I know more about the Eskimos but I know a bit about the others and history.

Do you agree with me but suppose that only you have stumbled upon the fact that there were some really cruel Indian practices? Am I stealing your thunder? I hate to burst your bubble but it is not a secret that many Indian communities did some pretty barbaric things. Or worse yet, do you believe that Indians were all a bunch of peaceful people?

I know more about the Eskimos but I know a bit about the others and history.
Inuit, please.

That is sort of a nasty thing to assume. I was a very good history student in my university days. I was an A- student of History and am a member of Phi Alpha Theta. I also live in an area with a rich Indian history. I also find the Indians to be an interesting topic and I have read a bit about them. I know more about the Eskimos but I know a bit about the others and history.

Do you agree with me but suppose that only you have stumbled upon the fact that there were some really cruel Indian practices? Am I stealing your thunder? I hate to burst your bubble but it is not a secret that many Indian communities did some pretty barbaric things. Or worse yet, do you believe that Indians were all a bunch of peaceful people living in harmony with nature?Conversely, were they all that worse than the Europeans?

More Japs, Chinese and Africans respectively.

There are some theories that Africans and I am not sure if they were Chineese or Japanese may have discovered the New World before Columbus.

Probably on Aztec sacrificial rites, extrapolated to the rest of the natives.

Most likely.

There are some theories that Africans and I am not sure if they were Chineese or Japanese may have discovered the New World before Columbus.
Aye, otoh there's ample evidence that it was the Europeans who Very Succeeded in colonising the Americas.

Well I think that a lot of the natives here were pretty darn evil and needed a good bit of civilizing.

EDIT: Someone already did. Ok.


Um, well lets see...

We have the Aztecs who all though they did do human sacrifices, they also had cities with sewage systems and knew to keep their shit from their food.

On the other hand, we havethe Europians who didnt do said sacrifices, but had the Inquesition and didnt have said sewage systems...

That is sort of a nasty thing to assume. I was a very good history student in my university days. I was an A- student of History and am a member of Phi Alpha Theta. I also live in an area with a rich Indian history. I also find the Indians to be an interesting topic and I have read a bit about them. I know more about the Eskimos but I know a bit about the others and history. Ugh. I'm so honoured that you READ about us, and that you were such a good history student. Clearly you have learned so much about us that you can, with authority, claim that some aboriginal nations were EVIL.

Do you agree with me but suppose that only you have stumbled upon the fact that there were some really cruel Indian practices? Am I stealing your thunder? I hate to burst your bubble but it is not a secret that many Indian communities did some pretty barbaric things. Or worse yet, do you believe that Indians were all a bunch of peaceful people?

Being an Indian I'm quite aware of what we are capable of...what any human being is capable of. That you actually think you, reading your European accounts of our societies, seen through the lens of colonialism, are fit to pass judgment on us, is absolutely laughable. That you refer to us only in the past tense only highlights my belief that you are exquisitely ignorant about our specific cultures, despite your protestations to the contrary.

The fact is, term like 'barbaric' are culturally loaded to connote practices among people that are not you. Rarely does one refer to one's own practices as barbaric. You described 'certain' aboriginal peoples as 'evil'. Please elaborate.

Being an Indian I'm quite aware of what we are capable of...

I've realized what you're apparently NOT capable of.

Making me a damned sandwich.

I've realized what you're apparently NOT capable of.

Making me a damned sandwich.

I don't fucking make sandwiches when I'm on the war path.

Ugh. I'm so honoured that you READ about us, and that you were such a good history student. Clearly you have learned so much about us that you can, with authority, claim that some aboriginal nations were EVIL.


Being an Indian I'm quite aware of what we are capable of...what any human being is capable of. That you actually think you, reading your European accounts of our societies, seen through the lens of colonialism, are fit to pass judgment on us, is absolutely laughable. That you refer to us only in the past tense only highlights my belief that you are exquisitely ignorant about our specific cultures, despite your protestations to the contrary.

The fact is, term like 'barbaric' are culturally loaded to connote practices among people that are not you. Rarely does one refer to one's own practices as barbaric. You described 'certain' aboriginal peoples as 'evil'. Please elaborate.


Silence savage. You are in need of a good civilizing. Here is your blanket loaded with small pox. And a civilized Conquistador will be over shortly to whipe out half the small pox survivors in your neighborhood and enslave the rest.

I don't fucking make sandwiches when I'm on the war path.

Can't go on the war path on an empty stomach now can you

I don't fucking make sandwiches when I'm on the war path.

don't you take that tone with me, I'll put you over my knee young lady...warpath or no.

Conversely, were they all that worse than the Europeans?

No. At least not in the early period of post-discovery. Discovery occurred pretty eaqly in the Renaissance period and these were some of the darkest days of European culture. This was a time of savage attorcities in Germany and elsewhere during the wars following the Protestant Reformation. We had the Spanish Inquisition and little to no concepyts of human rights. There was a hint of recognition of human rights at least in the treatment of nobility and some early due process rights in Britain. However, it seemed that violence and torture were pretty much in vogue during the early period. Around the turn of the 18th century, we see a reduction of this and a growing debate about human rights that ultimately bring about the Age of Reason.

At this point, European society definitely becomes a lot more civilized and starts doing a pretty good job of rising out of savagery. At this point they are higher up than many of the natives of the Americas. It then becomes the white man's burden to civilize the natives and spread the age of reason to all men. Focusing on the USA, it is at this point that we start to see some really sleazy dealings with the Indians. I believe that this says less about how civilized the Americans were than it does about the corruption that was inherent in the US government in the 19th century.

I would like to contrast the general discussion of European society or "the white man" from my society. I think that we and Rhode Islanders were pretty much tops in terms of civilized societies in the New World. I am a Pennsylvanian. We were too civilized for the New World and actually had to lower ourselves just to survive in the face of Indian brutality. We always had freedom of religious conscience even before we became a separate colony. We (at least in the Delaware River valley) had it ever since the British signed that treaty with the Dutch where they conquered New York. Indians were treated pretty fairly. It was only in response to a parade of maimed survivors of Indian attacks through Philadelphia that we even formed a military to deal with the indians.

At this point, European society definitely becomes a lot more civilized and starts doing a pretty good job of rising out of savagery. At this point they are higher up than many of the natives of the Americas. I'm going to ignore the fact that you seriously, rather than tongue-in-cheek use the term 'White Man's Burden' and focus on this. What exactly do you mean, and please provide examples.

What is it that you know about us that was so inherently 'lower down' than the Europeans? This will be the very last time I ask you to back yourself up, because I'm getting tired of reading your vague bullshit. Step up GF.

Ugh. I'm so honoured that you READ about us, and that you were such a good history student. Clearly you have learned so much about us that you can, with authority, claim that some aboriginal nations were EVIL.


Being an Indian I'm quite aware of what we are capable of...what any human being is capable of. That you actually think you, reading your European accounts of our societies, seen through the lens of colonialism, are fit to pass judgment on us, is absolutely laughable. That you refer to us only in the past tense only highlights my belief that you are exquisitely ignorant about our specific cultures, despite your protestations to the contrary.

The fact is, term like 'barbaric' are culturally loaded to connote practices among people that are not you. Rarely does one refer to one's own practices as barbaric. You described 'certain' aboriginal peoples as 'evil'. Please elaborate.

So you admit that you have a bias? You admit that you have difficulty believeing that some Indian nations were barbaric? I think that most European historians of European History beleive that Europeans were capable of being barbaric savages. Why can't you? Yep, I bet I may be right that you think that the native Americans were all kind, compassionate, hippie, pacifists.

There is plenty of evidence that they tortured people, sometimes even with fire which is as bad as it gets.

Do you want me to refer to Indians in the present tense? Ok, Indians are civilized today and this is a good thing. The world does not need any more torture and thankfully, Indians are not savages anymore.

I'm going to ignore the fact that you seriously, rather than tongue-in-cheek use the term 'White Man's Burden' and focus on this. What exactly do you mean, and please provide examples.

What is it that you know about us that was so inherently 'lower down' than the Europeans? This will be the very last time I ask you to back yourself up, because I'm getting tired of reading your vague bullshit. Step up GF.

That your savages and dont make sandwitches for Neo Art.

So you admit that you have a bias? You admit that you have difficulty believeing that some Indian nations were barbaric? I think that most European historians of European History beleive that Europeans were capable of being barbaric savages. Why can't you? Yep, I bet I may be right that you think that the native Americans were all kind, compassionate, hippie, pacifists.

if every civilization has its moments of "barbarity" the term itself loses all meaning. "barbaric savage" means more than simply violent. More than simply evil. More than simply destructive. I'm sure Neesika will recognize that there were elements of her culture that were not all good, just as every single person should be aware of the bad parts of their own cultural history.

But to call them "barbaric savages" is not merely to call them a people with dark spots in their history, as we all are, and is far closer to calling them something less than human.

That your savages and dont make sandwitches for Neo Art.

^ This.

S

There is plenty of evidence that they tortured people, sometimes even with fire which is as bad as it gets.

Do you really, really want me to go look up the Roman, Medieval, and Inquisitoral torture devices and techniques and post them here? What about the genocide that whiped out more than a quarter of the Native American population, or more than that in the Carribean?


All humans suck. But the Native Americans were in many, many ways higher up than the Europians of the time. The reverse is also true, but you seem to be ignoring that.

Hell, we can even look further down in history. Andrew Jackson. Trail of Tears. Ring a bell?

Those injuns sure are lucky we came here, killed them off and decided that all the land and resources they once had full reign over actually belonged to us. They should be licking our boots thanking us that we allowed a few of them to live.

I'm going to ignore the fact that you seriously, rather than tongue-in-cheek use the term 'White Man's Burden' and focus on this. What exactly do you mean, and please provide examples.

What is it that you know about us that was so inherently 'lower down' than the Europeans? This will be the very last time I ask you to back yourself up, because I'm getting tired of reading your vague bullshit. Step up GF.

Ok. I judge how civilized a culture is primarily by human rights. This is an idea that I share with DeTocqueville. I believe that Pennsylvania has a superior history of human rights than many Native Americans nations. The last book I read about Indians was about Indian women. I forget what it is called but I think it might have had "Daughters" in the title. The descriptions of torture therein were so awful that it made me depressed for a couple of days after reading it. I challenge you to find a book on Pennsylvania History that makes you similarly upset.

Do you really, really want me to go look up the Roman, Medieval, and Inquisitoral torture devices and techniques and post them here? What about the genocide that whiped out more than a quarter of the Native American population, or more than that in the Carribean?


All humans suck. But the Native Americans were in many, many ways higher up than the Europians of the time. The reverse is also true, but you seem to be ignoring that.

Hell, we can even look further down in history. Andrew Jackson. Trail of Tears. Ring a bell?

Andrew Jackson and the trail of tears was not a sadistic event. Do I need to remind you that Andrew Jackson did that in violation of a Supreme Court order?

I did not ignore your point at all. My point was that at the time of discovery there was nothing but savagery pretty much everywhere. Then with the age of reason, european savages became an increasingly endangered species. It was a good thing that Indian cultures integrated reason and concepts of human rights.

Also, I am not sure that there was a genocide that killed off 25% of the Indian population. Who told you that? My understanding is that diseases killed off most of the Indians. They were not prepared for the diseases that whites brought with them. I would call that unfortunate but I would not call that genocide. Genocide is an intentional act. Disease was used as a weapon during some attrocious but isolated acts. However, most of it happened accidentally by people who did not even know of the existence of disease germs.

I challenge you to find a book on Pennsylvania History that makes you similarly upset.

So we're juding "pennsylvania" as a society now? You're willing to lump all native americans into one big conglomerate based on something you might have read once (brilliant history student by the way "it has the word Daughter in it...") but support the claim that Europe/America was better because of the events fully contained in PENNSYLVANIA???

I am willing to believe that nobody here in my office building has ever engaged in serious human rights abuses, does that make us better than pennsylvania?

Or perhaps if we're going to judge societies, we should judge societies, and if we want to start talking about the human rights violations of America, and the Europeans that preceded it...well....how much time you got?

Ok. I judge how civilized a culture is primarily by human rights. This is an idea that I share with DeTocqueville. I believe that Pennsylvania has a superior history of human rights than many Native Americans nations. The last book I read about Indians was about Indian women. I forget what it is called but I think it might have had "Daughters" in the title. The descriptions of torture therein were so awful that it made me depressed for a couple of days after reading it. I challenge you to find a book on Pennsylvania History that makes you similarly upset.



You realize that the Native American tribes were all very different from one another, right? You realize that just because you rea about one, at most 5 tribes that MAY have used torture, that doesnt mean that every tribe did, right?

You also realize that any hostility on the part of the Native Americans was in reaction to genocide and having their land literally stolen from them, by people like your beloved Pennsylvnians, right?

There is plenty of evidence that they tortured people, sometimes even with fire which is as bad as it gets.

I see you are in serious need of schooling, oh he who excelled in history.

Firstly, when you wish to make accusations about aboriginal peoples, you need to be specific. You need to make it clear who you are speaking about, unless you want to be perceived as someone who is ignorant to the fact that we come from extremely diverse cultural, linguistic, and historical backgrounds.

Second, when you wish to make claims about aboriginal practices, you need to provide sources. Otherwise, there are those among us who might think you simply watched Apocalypto and took it as gospel.

Third, I am not going to take the time to dispute your assertations when you have done nothing more than say 'well Indians were bad, I mean I know it, you know it, though I can't really get more detailed than that.... ' Puleez. I am waiting for you to enter the debate. I'm getting bored.

What the fuck does this:


Do I need to remind you that Andrew Jackson did that in violation of a Supreme Court order?

Have to do with this:

Andrew Jackson and the trail of tears was not a sadistic event.

So the fuck what that he did it in violation of SCOTUS, he still did it didn't he? It still happened didn't it? The soldiers still carried out those orders, didn't they?

And I seriously question what qualifies as a "sadistic event" in your little universe if forcibly removing someone from their homes, and forcing them on starvation marches doesn't.

So we're juding "pennsylvania" as a society now? I am willing to believe that nobody here in my office building has ever engaged in serious human rights abuses, does that make us better than pennsylvania?

Or perhaps if we're going to judge societies, we should judge societies, and if we want to start talking about the human rights violations of America, and the Europeans that preceded it...well....how much time you got?

The Duchy of Cornwall has never invaded anyone, fought anyone or committed mass genocide or torture.

Therefore, it is the pinnacle of human rights, and we look down upon Pennsylvania!

Andrew Jackson and the trail of tears was not a sadistic event.



Uh...did you just say that committing genocides, stealing peoples lands and sending them on a forced march at gunpoint was not a sadistic event?

Holy crap what a sad, deluded world you live in kiddo.

we look down upon Pennsylvania!

Frankly speaking, we all look down on Pennsylvania

Ok. I judge how civilized a culture is primarily by human rights. This is an idea that I share with DeTocqueville. I believe that Pennsylvania has a superior history of human rights than many Native Americans nations. The last book I read about Indians was about Indian women. I forget what it is called but I think it might have had "Daughters" in the title. The descriptions of torture therein were so awful that it made me depressed for a couple of days after reading it. I challenge you to find a book on Pennsylvania History that makes you similarly upset.

This is pathetic. Truly. Oh hey, I read a book once about these white people, and it was about white women, I think it had 'women' in the title. I forget what it was called but yeah, they talked about these crazy things that were just so terrible I cried for weeks after. I challenge you to find something like that to like, totally refute the point I have failed to make.

My point is that you are so absolutely ignorant about aboriginal culture, that you lack the capacity to make any sort of statements about us. So far you have done nothing to convince me that you have any sort of specific knowledge about any particular aboriginal nation. You only generalise and vaguely refer to us as a homogenous group. If you pulled this shit in a research paper, I think you know the sort of reception your arguments would receive.

If you pulled this shit in a research paper, I think you know the sort of reception your arguments would receive.

Id fail him, but I just might be mean.

The Duchy of Cornwall has never invaded anyone, fought anyone or committed mass genocide or torture.

wrong,They invaded Devon during the English civil war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornwall_in_the_English_Civil_War#Civil_War_Military_actions_in_Cornwall) for instance.

This is pathetic. Truly. Oh hey, I read a book once about these white people, and it was about white women, I think it had 'women' in the title. I forget what it was called but yeah, they talked about these crazy things that were just so terrible I cried for weeks after. I challenge you to find something like that to like, totally refute the point I have failed to make.

My point is that you are so absolutely ignorant about aboriginal culture, that you lack the capacity to make any sort of statements about us. So far you have done nothing to convince me that you have any sort of specific knowledge about any particular aboriginal nation. You only generalise and vaguely refer to us as a homogenous group. If you pulled this shit in a research paper, I think you know the sort of reception your arguments would receive.

I agree that this discussion is not research paper material. I am just having a discussion. Ok, I believe that many of the Plains Indians had a history of taking captives from their enemies and either a family of a dead soldier could adopt or marry him or the captive could be tortured and killed.

Our local Indians were the Algonquins and the Iriquois confederacy. The Iriquois governed the defeated Lenae Lenape from here. It is my understanding that there was a custom known as running the gauntlet in at least one of those communities. I also believe that it took a parade of mainly Scotch-Irish maimed survivors of indian attacks to convince our government to form an army to fight indians. Do you think I am wrong or something?

wrong,They invaded Devon during the English civil war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornwall_in_the_English_Civil_War#Civil_War_Military_actions_in_Cornwall) for instance.

Well, using GF's logic, they obviously deserved it. They were obviously more primitive than Cornwall and had to be pacified.

"Run to The Hills" by Iron Maiden


The Indians suffered when the white man came. They didn't do anything to provoke it. No matter what the Indians did before the white man came, they still didn't do anything to the white men directly. The whites had no ethical reason to slaughter them, but they did.

Let's one of us actually provide some specifics, m'kay?

I'm going to look at one of the more documented peoples, the Iroquois. I do this because there are many primary and secondary sources available if you actually wish to become a real student of history. I am using right now, a book entitled "The Great Peace: Chronicles of a Diplomatic Saga" by Alan Beaulieu and Roland Viau, ISBN: 2-92171-830-8.

One section describes warfare among the Iroquos prior to European contact. The authors point out something that aboriginal people are well aware of...our warfare was not about conquest, but rather a result of more complex social factors. It was an opportunity to gain prestige, a very similar motivation to many of the nobles and their offspring in European armies. (and it could be argued, is still a major motivation in US and Canadian armed forces) Warfare prior to European contact was guerrilla style, and very small scale. Warbands rarely contained more than 25 warriors, and often less than 10. While Western Europe was engaged in organised mass slaughter, the Iroquos were skirmishing amongst one another, or with other tribes for prestige, or to settle blood fueds. Prisoners were either adopted into the tribe (a common practice among most aboriginal peoples) or put to death. Those put to death were often executed by the family of a murdered relative as punishment for that murder. Women captives were only very rarely executed, and most became part of the tribe.

The Iroquois scalped, and used fire as a method of torture, and many practices ritual cannibalism. They also kept some captured enemies as slaves. They were capable of atrocity, like any other people. However, they also had a sophisticated legal and political tradition, and continue to be goverened by a Clan system. The Iroquois had created a confederacy around 1500, although there is new evidence that this confederacy existed on a smaller scale nearly two hundred years before this. Sophisticated trade agreements and political power sharing between autonomous Iroquois nations, including rules of quorum, representation by population, and other so called 'modern inventions' existed. Women held and continue to hold high positions of power, and were not considered chattel, or inferior to men. The Iroquois were an agrarian people who rotated their living quarters to allow their fields to lay fallow, and they had developed a mixed economy.

Now how could you possibly be able to compare cultures without even this basic information? If you wish to focus only on atrocities, and ignore all else, then you must use this approach when it comes to judging your own people.

See, when you want to talk shit, you back yourself up. You bring facts to the table, and you discuss those facts. I know myself capable of discussing these issues because I have those facts. You claim yourself capable, but I think you need to admit to yourself that you in fact are anything but.

all this and I STILL don't have a sandwich

"Run to The Hills" by Iron Maiden


Already posted it, page 3.

They did the same things we did to them to their enemies.

all this and I STILL don't have a sandwich


Man, when you get it that better be a damn good sandwich.

I agree that this discussion is not research paper material. I am just having a discussion. Ok, I believe that many of the Plains Indians had a history of taking captives from their enemies and either a family of a dead soldier could adopt or marry him or the captive could be tortured and killed. The Iroquois are not considered part of the 'Plains' people. The Iroquois were a semi-settled agrarian people. 'Plains' Indians refers specifically to the nations in the West, such as the Cree, the Sioux, the Blackfoot, the Blood, the Peigan and so forth. You might want to write this down.

Women and children of captured enemies became the responsibility of the tribe...this is a shared trait among the Plains people and the Iroquois nations. The captured men could indeed become adopted into the tribe, or put to death. This was an understood legal principle. It was the responsibility of family members to avenge a murder, as there was really no other way to either provide retribution, or deter others from committing murder.


Our local Indians were the Algonquins and the Iriquois confederacy. The Iriquois governed the defeated Lenae Lenape from here. It is my understanding that there was a custom known as running the gauntlet in at least one of those communities. I also believe that it took a parade of mainly Scotch-Irish maimed survivors of indian attacks to convince our government to form an army to fight indians. Do you think I am wrong or something?WHat's your point about fighting the indians? Or about running the gauntlet? I fail to see what you wish to prove with these statements, please clarify. It's like me saying, "oh hey apparently the English were into drawing and quartering people and did you know that at one point, a bunch of people had to go like, have some sort of revolution in England? Yeah, yeah, see? See!?'

all this and I STILL don't have a sandwich

Then go make one, whiny man!

Then go make one, whiny man!

why the fuck would I do that, that's what I have YOU for woman.

why the fuck would I do that, that's what I have YOU for woman.

Take your patriarchy and shove it up your behind :P *runs*

Take your patriarchy and shove it up your behind :P *runs*

yeah, you better run, you know what's coming because of that....

My great-grandmother quite probably poisoned her first husband in revenge for his physical abuse. I quake not at your far-away threats for I have strong blood :P

I would like a cookie... When she's done making you a sandwich, have her get me a cookie....

My great-grandmother quite probably poisoned her first husband in revenge for his physical abuse.

Difference between her and you?

You like it.

Difference between her and you?

You like it.

And with that, I must be gone. Someone please mop up the remains of GF...I got a bit on my boot...

Because there is a general "White" hive mind and they plot to destroy the pure and peaceful lives of the native peoples! :rolleyes:

In all honesty many of the people who came over to the New World, toughed a journey of such hardship and duress that many today on this forum would be hardpressed to put themselves through.

They were normal men and women, uneducated, mostly rural growing up deep in the farmlands or slums of urban cities. Who sought to better their lot and that of their children in the "New World." No real evil intentions other than arriving with nothing and building up everything from scratch (It's not as if the Native Americans left behind cities on which to add infrastructure, it all had to be built ground up).

Even the term "white" is generative. Irish were not given the right to vote and self-rule in North Ireland until the 1970's (and even allowed self-rule in Ireland itself in the 1920s instead of being vassals who had to be civilized and their culture crushed), well after the civil rights movement ended discrimination against Africans in the Western world.

The Irish were not even considered whites until the 60-70's. Slavs or East Europeans are also not considered Whites by many people today, but rather Asian hybrids (a belief reinforced during the cold war, to alienate any feelings of kinship towards the USSR even more).

So why even use a term such as "White man's" arrival to the America's? Why not simply use the terms British, German, Spanish, Portuguese and French immigrants? Or West European?

What kind of a term is White anyways? To what does it specify? The paleness of skin? Does that mean anyone not of Asian or African tone is White? In which case would that include Arabs, Persians, Armenians, Kazakhs, Dagestanis and Latin Americans? Or is it people of Western Europe (in which case the blond haired and blue eye'd inhabitants of Eastern European nations are to be considered non-whites?). Or is it to mean people who possess a pale skin, a European culture and speak a European tongue? (in which case pale skinned, blue eye'd and pale brown haired Persians are non-whites?). Or does it mean strictly Proto-Germanic peoples only (i.e; Germans, Benelux, French, Danes, Swedes, Norwegians, English, North Italians and Austrians)?

Please be so kind to tell me the exact definition of what is a "white man?"

Please be so kind to tell me the exact definition of what is a "white man?"

Well, to tell you what what you seem to be to thick to get. Europeans who came over from Europe to America!!!!! Wow, so hard. :rolleyes:

Well, to tell you what what you seem to be to thick to get. Europeans who came over from Europe to America!!!!! Wow, so hard. :rolleyes:


Really? So I suppose blue eye'd Persians, pale skinned Dagestanis and fair featured Armenians are all non-whites because they live in geographical Asia? As well as Russians living East of the Ural are all non-whites?

So white is a geographical based terminology for you then? Not an actual feature? One can be paler skinned, possess fairer features but not be white because one is not a European by origin?

Even the term "white" is generative. Irish were not given the right to vote and self-rule in North Ireland until the 1970's (and even allowed self-rule in Ireland itself in the 1920s instead of being vassals who had to be civilized and their culture crushed), well after the civil rights movement ended discrimination against Africans in the Western world.

The Irish were not even considered whites until the 60-70's. Slavs or East Europeans are also not considered Whites by many people today, but rather Asian hybrids (a belief reinforced during the cold war, to alienate any feelings of kinship towards the USSR even more).



Im sorry but....Your wrong.

Seriously look Ireland up, Im not gonna explain your own ignorance to you.

Really? So I suppose blue eye'd Persians, pale skinned Dagestanis and fair featured Armenians are all non-whites because they live in geographical Asia? As well as Russians living East of the Ural are all non-whites?

So white is a geographical based terminology for you then? Not an actual feature? One can be paler skinned, possess fairer features but not be white because one is not a European by origin?

If you want REALLY basic FINE. Spanish for south america and anglo germanic for north america. At least for a time.

They were normal men and women, uneducated, mostly rural growing up deep in the farmlands or slums of urban cities. Who sought to better their lot and that of their children in the "New World." No real evil intentions


They actually in many instances came to civilize the evil pagans. Greed, Glory, and God, and all that jazz.



other than arriving with nothing and building up everything from scratch (It's not as if the Native Americans left behind cities on which to add infrastructure, it all had to be built ground up).

Also not true. Many times they landed in or settled in areas that were already cleared of trees and ploughed, there were even planted crops growing, that the Native Americans had abandoned. So, they didnt have to build everything from the ground up. In many cases in regards to their food, the Native Americans had done it for them. They also taught them how to keep doing it.

....Being an Indian I'm quite aware of what we are capable of...what any human being is capable of. That you actually think you, reading your European accounts of our societies, seen through the lens of colonialism, are fit to pass judgment on us, is absolutely laughable. ...

As another Indian, I must say that is a frequent thing I come across discussions about the colonialism of my own country. I can totally understand how you feel. :)

They actually in many instances came to civilize the evil pagans. Greed, Glory, and God, and all that jazz.

So all the refugees and asylum seekers from the Potato famine, 30 years war, German overpopulation landcrisis all came because they needed to civilize the evil pagans and were greedy?

I'm not denying that quite a few elite and upper class individuals came over to the Americas with less than noble goals. But the majority were in the heart of the theme "bring your tired, your poor,..."





Also not true. Many times they landed in or settled in areas that were already cleared of trees and ploughed, there were even planted crops growing, that the Native Americans had abandoned. So, they didnt have to build everything from the ground up. In many cases in regards to their food, the Native Americans had done it for them. They also taught them how to keep doing it.

That is at best superficial. I certainly don't remember native Americans laying brick foundations for streets, bringing pack animals for transportation and farming, installing plumbing in the major settlement areas such as Boston and New Amsterdam (later New York), later putting down railroad tracks to further centralize everything.

In short the settlers managed to build up in a decade or two what the native Americans couldn't in thousands of years.

In short if the Native Americans would never have been replaced with the more efficient, learned and advanced settlers North America today would probably be a third world nation. Or failing that, something on par to Vietnam or Laos.

The Central and South American tribes possibly would have reached a higher standard of living and technology crudely resembling Europe, based on their ability to have formed cities and advanced societies.


Im sorry but....Your wrong.

Seriously look Ireland up, Im not gonna explain your own ignorance to you.

Did. Are you saying that Ireland was not a free nation before 1922? Or that all attempts before that to separate were always brutally repressed? Or that there were numerous attempts to force the Irish from their Catholic faith? Or Anglo-scottish settlement in the north of the Irish isle?

Or for that matter that Catholic Irish were not unfairly represented in N. Ireland prior to the 1970s?

So all the refugees and asylum seekers from the Potato famine, 30 years war, German overpopulation landcrisis all came because they needed to civilize the evil pagans and were greedy?

I'm not denying that quite a few elite and upper class individuals came over to the Americas with less than noble goals. But the majority were in the heart of the theme "bring your tired, your poor,..."


Wow, except we're talking way earlier than you are.











That is at best superficial. I certainly don't remember native Americans laying brick foundations for streets, bringing pack animals for transportation and farming, installing plumbing in the major settlement areas such as Boston and New Amsterdam (later New York), later putting down railroad tracks to further centralize everything.

In short the settlers managed to build up in a decade or two what the native Americans couldn't in thousands of years.


Again, we're talking way earlier than you are.


EDIT: The Chinese did most of the railroad too.

Did. Are you saying that Ireland was not a free nation before 1922? Or that all attempts before that to separate were always brutally repressed? Or that there were numerous attempts to force the Irish from their Catholic faith? Or Anglo-scottish settlement in the north of the Irish isle?

Or for that matter that Catholic Irish were not unfairly represented in N. Ireland prior to the 1970s?


Firstly from your original quote. "Irish were not given the right to vote and self-rule in North Ireland until the 1970's"

Its a strong statement and completely false. They had a British influenced government, but it was definately self governed. Also in whatever skewed place your researching from, does it mention northern ireland holding a referendum to remain part of Britain? Which it won in favour as staying part of the nation.

Next:

Ireland was part of Britain pre-1922, I dont see why you would expect them to be any free-er then the other members.

Lastly
Unfairly represented? They were a minority, a tiny one what do you expect?
As for converting Catholics, meh.

I apologise in advance for not ordering this post well, but Im going to bed.

Wow, except we're talking way earlier than you are.









Again, we're talking way earlier than you are.


My bad. I'll let the point rest then. Since we are obviously talking of different time frames and eras my point is probably moot.

Well I think that a lot of the natives here were pretty darn evil and needed a good bit of civilizing.

Like being taught "scalping"? Aw, you win the Cute Award.

Firstly from your original quote. "Irish were not given the right to vote and self-rule in North Ireland until the 1970's"

Its a strong statement and completely false. They had a British influenced government, but it was definately self governed. Also in whatever skewed place your researching from, does it mention northern ireland holding a referendum to remain part of Britain? Which it won in favour as staying part of the nation.

Next:

Ireland was part of Britain pre-1922, I dont see why you would expect them to be any free-er then the other members.

Lastly
Unfairly represented? They were a minority, a tiny one what do you expect?
As for converting Catholics, meh.

I apologise in advance for not ordering this post well, but Im going to bed.


Roman Catholics in N. Ireland were just shy of 40% of the population. That is a small minority? Considering they held less than 5% of the power. Had the worse jobs and were generally disadvantaged in most ways, I would hardly consider it something to "expect." The general discontentment that arose out of it did lead to riots on a scale that the government on Stormont feared a complete breakdown of order and panickedly called in the British government for support. Which in turn led to another tragedy called Bloody Sunday, which whoever was guilty or not there, pro-longed the Troubles for another couple of decades.

Also yes. It was only in 1973 after extensive riots and an almost collapse of the whole region that finally a power-sharing scheme was implemented that should ensure Catholics their justified representation in government affairs.


But this is leading offtopic. Feel free to open a new one if you want to continue the issue.

I'd kill Columbus or whatever just to see what happens. Although it'd probably bring up the father-son paradox (or whatever it's called) for me...

I'd kill Columbus or whatever just to see what happens. Although it'd probably bring up the father-son paradox (or whatever it's called) for me...

The grandfather paradox, I think you mean.

I'd kill Columbus or whatever just to see what happens. Although it'd probably bring up the father-son paradox (or whatever it's called) for me...

Nothing would have changed.

The middle-east was blocking land-routes or demanding more money for trade with south, south-east and far-east Asia.

Some other fellow would have set sail to find a sea route to India and would have "found" the Americas. More would have followed and it would have been the same story...maybe with minor variations on which European nation dominates what and when...

The chinese have a fry bread which is almost identical to the indian kind, although it is made in strips rather than rounds.

Eaten with some good hearty soup it really takes me back to AZ and the Tohono O'odham Fry Bread House.

I don't fucking make sandwiches when I'm on the war path.

This seems to be the reason your people lost the wars. For all the other factors, it seems that the White man could do something your people could not:

We could multitask.

This seems to be the reason your people lost the wars. For all the other factors, it seems that the White man could do something your people could not:

We could multitask.

*nods*

Of course let us not forget the Amish. They came to the Americas and didn't truly bother anyone. Didn't prevent Native Americans from attacking them. The Native Americans attacked the Jacob Hochstetler homestead and set the house afire. The Indians stood guard around the house and torched the Hochstetler home, so the family could not escape without risking their lives. As the fire worsened, the wounded Jacob (he had been shot during the initial attack) tried to help his wife (her name is unknown) crawl out the cellar window. She became stuck in her escape and was stabbed in the back and scalped. Altogether over 200 people were murdered in Berks County, including three in the Hochstetler clan, and nearly every homestead was razed.

Because the brave warriors the Native Americans were they obviously attacked and murdered those who through religious belief refused to defend themselves. What noble warriors indeed. Why bother a risky campaign to attack the strong settlements when you can kill isolated people who are forbidden to raise a weapon even in self-defense?

Why bother a risky campaign to attack the strong settlements when you can kill isolated people who are forbidden to raise a weapon even in self-defense?

One question. Did they know this about the Amish?

Native Americans can fight back this way:

One thing all white people believe is that natural medicine can cure everything. If you want to test this theory, think about which stores supply the bulk of natural/herbal remedies? Thats right! Whole Foods and Organic Co-ops!

Because of a rather shady history, white people do not trust the pharmaceutical industry. Using pretty sound logic, they believe that the drug companies have no motivation to find real cures for things like AIDS since the real profit are in drugs like Viagra and Xanax.

Using their powers of deduction, white people have determined that herbal remedies are unilaterally better than anything produced by a drug company.

Since white people can’t really blame any race for their problems, they need to blame corporations. In this case, the reason that they are sick or fat or without energy is because the drug companies are in a conspiracy to keep them addicted to placebos. This helps them shed accountability, and it lets them feel like they are helping the environment by rejecting the polluting, greedy, awful drug companies and taking natural, organic medicine from the earth.

But perhaps it goes deeper. Hundreds of years ago, another group of people believed firmly in natural medicine and it’s ability to cure disease. Then white people gave them blankets with small pox and they all died. So perhaps turning to natural medicine also helps white people feel better about killing natives.

How can you use this for gain? It’s easy! When a white person you work with is feeling sick or says they have no energy, ask them to tell you more about their problems. After pretending to listen for a little while, tell them that in your culture/home country “we cured that using a special herbal powder from [insert made up tree] root.”

Then the next day bring them a small bag of basil or oregano and tell them to boil it in a tea (white people love to believe in magic teas) and see how they feel in the morning. One of two things will happen. They will either wake up feeling great because they want to feel great and they’ll thank you profusely. Or they will wake up feeling like crap, and when you confront them at work, they will lie and say they feel good.

Either way, you did them a favor so now they owe you a favor.

Note: it’s weird that there are some white people who won’t take aspirin, but will take Ecstasy, Cocaine, Xanax and Vicodin.

This seems to be the reason your people lost the wars. For all the other factors, it seems that the White man could do something your people could not:

We could multitask.

My fat hairy white ass! Sure, some of us can multitask, some of any group can multitask.

But the White Man did not make his own sandwiches on the war path, and while this may have granted a military advantage it's not due to multitasking, but subcontracting! That's right, we all know it was the Black, Chinese and, yes, Indian Man who made all the sandwiches.

it was pretty much unstopable. columbus was not the first to discover the "new" world. there is evidence of vikings making the voyage and even people from the france area today that may of settled it with the indians. there is alot of controversy over who really first settled there

there was a skull found in south america that some beleive belonged to an australian aborigine.

as for the way the natives were treated once the "europeans" arrived. it is really not that different then other cultures were treated all throught out history when a stronger more powerful emprie/civilization came through. that does not mean it was good.

W00T! My thread is teh uber winner!

Let's one of us actually provide some specifics, m'kay?

I'm going to look at one of the more documented peoples, the Iroquois. I do this because there are many primary and secondary sources available if you actually wish to become a real student of history. I am using right now, a book entitled "The Great Peace: Chronicles of a Diplomatic Saga" by Alan Beaulieu and Roland Viau, ISBN: 2-92171-830-8.

One section describes warfare among the Iroquos prior to European contact. The authors point out something that aboriginal people are well aware of...our warfare was not about conquest, but rather a result of more complex social factors. It was an opportunity to gain prestige, a very similar motivation to many of the nobles and their offspring in European armies. (and it could be argued, is still a major motivation in US and Canadian armed forces) Warfare prior to European contact was guerrilla style, and very small scale. Warbands rarely contained more than 25 warriors, and often less than 10. While Western Europe was engaged in organised mass slaughter, the Iroquos were skirmishing amongst one another, or with other tribes for prestige, or to settle blood fueds. Prisoners were either adopted into the tribe (a common practice among most aboriginal peoples) or put to death. Those put to death were often executed by the family of a murdered relative as punishment for that murder. Women captives were only very rarely executed, and most became part of the tribe.

The Iroquois scalped, and used fire as a method of torture, and many practices ritual cannibalism. They also kept some captured enemies as slaves. They were capable of atrocity, like any other people. However, they also had a sophisticated legal and political tradition, and continue to be goverened by a Clan system. The Iroquois had created a confederacy around 1500, although there is new evidence that this confederacy existed on a smaller scale nearly two hundred years before this. Sophisticated trade agreements and political power sharing between autonomous Iroquois nations, including rules of quorum, representation by population, and other so called 'modern inventions' existed. Women held and continue to hold high positions of power, and were not considered chattel, or inferior to men. The Iroquois were an agrarian people who rotated their living quarters to allow their fields to lay fallow, and they had developed a mixed economy.

Now how could you possibly be able to compare cultures without even this basic information? If you wish to focus only on atrocities, and ignore all else, then you must use this approach when it comes to judging your own people.

See, when you want to talk shit, you back yourself up. You bring facts to the table, and you discuss those facts. I know myself capable of discussing these issues because I have those facts. You claim yourself capable, but I think you need to admit to yourself that you in fact are anything but.

Thank you. Neesika, if I had simply told you this yesterday you would have screamed at me for not quoting some source. I agree with this 100%. In elementary school we were taught this stuff because the Iroquois are an important part of our history. Why do you assume that I am debating from a position of ignorance? Maybe you need to study Indian history more. I do not know. I am glad that you started though with this book. Hopefully, you now understand that Indians were some pretty nasty violent folks and it is a good thing that they are no longer running around torturing captives to death.

Thank you. If i had said any of those things Neesika and others would have yelled at me because I did not have a source to quote from. They seem to think that if I would tell them this that I would be lying because I did not happen to have a book in front of me to quote from.

Well no, it's more like you wouldn't say it in quite such a reasoned and succinct way. And I have doubts you'd say those things at all. When Neesika did, it was to simply clear the record. When you did, I would have to consider the possibility that you do it to support judging Indians as scalping barbarians.

Edit: Especially since you went and edited your post, adding something apparently just to prove me 100% correct:

Hopefully, you now understand that Indians were some pretty nasty violent folks and it is a good thing that they are no longer running around torturing captives to death.

So I guess in conclusion, the reason people would "yell" at you is due to your bigoted racism, and less to do with how Neesika has a book and you don't.

The Iroquois scalped, and used fire as a method of torture, and many practices ritual cannibalism. They also kept some captured enemies as slaves. They were capable of atrocity, like any other people.

I hate to say this, Neesika, but they got most of that from the Spanish.

...snipped cut and paste of wiki article... Because the brave warriors the Native Americans were they obviously attacked and murdered those who through religious belief refused to defend themselves. What noble warriors indeed. Why bother a risky campaign to attack the strong settlements when you can kill isolated people who are forbidden to raise a weapon even in self-defense?

These are questions you should ask the French scouts who were leading the local (i.e. aboriginal) troops, as this was part of a French raid on an English outpost during the Seven Years War, also known in Britain as the French and Indian War.

My point is that you can not use this as an example of savagery among Native Americans, as it was a French action against English civilians.

and it is a good thing that they are no longer running around torturing captives to death.

Who, the spanish?

Or did you mean the british?

Chinese?

Japanese?

Germans?

Sorry, if you're going to judge a civilization by "torturing captives to death" you have a lot of stones to throw.

Well no, it's more like you wouldn't say it in quite such a reasoned and succinct way. And I have doubts you'd say those things at all. When Neesika did, it was to simply clear the record. When you did, I would have to consider the possibility that you do it to support judging Indians as scalping barbarians.

No. Indians did nasty things. They were about as bad as the Catholics were in their persecution of Protestants and other "heretics" during the Middle Ages. I am glad that they no longer do this sort of nastiness. I call that progress. I am not sure what you guys think my position is on all of this.

Who, the spanish?

Or did you mean the british?

Chinese?

Japanese?

Germans?

Sorry, if you're going to judge a civilization by "torturing captives to death" you have a lot of stones to throw.

Yes, it is bad anywhere it happens, I am not sure what you are getting at.

No. Indians did nasty things. They were about as bad as the Catholics were in their persecution of Protestants and other "heretics" during the Middle Ages. I am glad that they no longer do this sort of nastiness. I call that progress. I am not sure what you guys think my position is on all of this.

If your position is merely "hey, indians, like all other societies throughout history, did some bad stuff, and it's good that the indians are no longer doing such bad stuff, because bad stuff is bad, and doing bad things is bad, and it's good the indians aren't doing bad things, just like the French, Spanish, British, Chinese, Japanese and many other cultures who did equally bad things aren't doing them anymore." then you would have said that.

Instead you went on some borderline racist tirade calling them "barbaric savages" and made a point of saying how the good people of pennsylvania never acted in such a subhuman fashion. You weren't simply trying to make a point that native american populations had their moments of brutality, like every other group on the planet. I assume you're smart enough to have said that had you meant it. You didn't, you tried to make some ludicrus comparison, using highly loaded terms like "savages".

No. Indians did nasty things. They were about as bad as the Catholics were in their persecution of Protestants and other "heretics" during the Middle Ages. I am glad that they no longer do this sort of nastiness. I call that progress. I am not sure what you guys think my position is on all of this.

What your position is? It's no secret.

Indians were some pretty nasty violent folks

But I guess I could pretend I didn't read that and just wait until the next time you open your mouth and something big and stupid flops out.

What your position is? It's no secret.



But I guess I could pretend I didn't read that and just wait until the next time you open your mouth and something big and stupid flops out.

I was thinking more of this one:

...My point was that at the time of discovery there was nothing but savagery pretty much everywhere. Then with the age of reason, european savages became an increasingly endangered species. It was a good thing that Indian cultures integrated reason and concepts of human rights...

I like the way he implies that Native Americans had neither reason nor concepts of human rights until Europeans showed up.

If your position is merely "hey, indians, like all other societies throughout history, did some bad stuff, and it's good that the indians are no longer doing such bad stuff, because bad stuff is bad, and doing bad things is bad, and it's good the indians aren't doing bad things, just like the French, Spanish, British, Chinese, Japanese and many other cultures who did equally bad things aren't doing them anymore." then you would have said that.

Instead you went on some borderline racist tirade calling them "barbaric savages" and made a point of saying how the good people of pennsylvania never acted in such a subhuman fashion. You weren't simply trying to make a point that native american populations had their moments of brutality, like every other group on the planet. I assume you're smart enough to have said that had you meant it. You didn't, you tried to make some ludicrus comparison, using highly loaded terms like "savages".

No. If you read my posts you would see that I called European culture savage as well until the age of reason and the widespread recognition of human rights elevated Eurpoean society out of savagery. I said that it was a good thing that Indian culture was similarly civilized. Now I add the point that I believe that Indian culture was probably civilized quicker due to contact with the white man.

I also pointed out that Pennsylvania has a wonderful history in the area of human rights and I am quite proud of it. I am not saying that things were always perfect here, but I think that by and large we can be proud of William Penn and the Quakers and how they conducted themselves when they were pretty much given the green light to try and set up a Quaker Utopia here. I also pointed out that Rhode Island has a similarly impressive colonial history although I really do not know as much about their history as I do about ours.

I was thinking more of this one:



I like the way he implies that Native Americans had neither reason nor concepts of human rights until Europeans showed up.

Ummm how again is torturing someone to death consistent with any definition of human rights? I just do not get it, are you of the Kim Jong Il school of human rights?

I was thinking more of this one:



I like the way he implies that Native Americans had neither reason nor concepts of human rights until Europeans showed up.

Notice that I referred to just about everyone on the Earth as savages. Do you think that I am saying that Indians were the only evil ones?

Now I add the point that I believe that Indian culture was probably civilized quicker due to contact with the white man.

And throw in a healthy dose of white man's burden. "those filthy savages were LUCKY we conqured them, they were obviously too primitive to take care of themselves"

And you wonder why people haven't taken you seriously in this thread.

And throw in a healthy dose of white man's burden. "those filthy savages were LUCKY we conqured them, they were obviously too primitive to take care of themselves"

And you wonder why people haven't taken you seriously in this thread.

Ok, so lets say that Indians started colonizing Europe around the time when the Catholics were rounding up Protestants and "secret jews" and torturing and killing them. Let's suppose that the Indians carried diseases with them that the Europeans were highly susceptible to but the Indians were not highly susceptible to the Europeans' "new" diseases.

Let's suppose that this colonization and conquest of Europe cut short the Spanish Inquisition by a century. Would that not be good for the Europeans?

Look, I do not know what problem you have with the concept of the white man's burden, but I think that human rights and the reduction of pain and suffering is a good thing. If that makes me wrong, well I do not want to be right. I get particularly worked up about the idea of any torture by burning but all torture is bad. Why are you guys defending the right to torture? You guys are sickos.

Ummm how again is torturing someone to death consistent with any definition of human rights? I just do not get it, are you of the Kim Jong Il school of human rights?

Yes, I can see why no one takes you seriously. Because I never said or implied in any way that the vast panorama of Native American cultures was uniformly a paragon of human rights.

Notice that I referred to just about everyone on the Earth as savages. Do you think that I am saying that Indians were the only evil ones?

No. You're saying everyone was evil. But then through some unexplained phenomenon, white people became the only reasonable people in the world and the only ones who had ever thought of human rights. It seems more like you're saying that Europeans were the only ones who weren't evil.

Which is even stupider than saying 'Indians were the only evil ones'.

...we can be proud of William Penn and the Quakers and how they conducted themselves when they were pretty much given the green light to try and set up a Quaker Utopia here. I also pointed out that Rhode Island has a similarly impressive colonial history although I really do not know as much about their history as I do about ours.

Except you don't know enough to know that Quaker has never been an official terms for the Friends.

No. Indians did nasty things. They were about as bad as the Catholics were in their persecution of Protestants and other "heretics" during the Middle Ages. I am glad that they no longer do this sort of nastiness. I call that progress. I am not sure what you guys think my position is on all of this.

Protestans were not around during the Middle Ages. The reformation happend about 67 years after them, actually.


Our point is you are a bigot for making such claims as "The Indians need some civilizing" when we can cleary show many, many ways where the Native Americans were MORE civilized than the Europians. Like women's rights, for starters.

Look, I do not know what problem you have with the concept of the white man's burden.

I think that says it all right there. The problem with white man's burden is that it's inherently a circular argument. It's fundamental principle is that the white "civilized" societies had a duty to civilize the "uncivilized" savagages. Except the definition of "civilized" was defined entirely by what the white societies did differently than the non white societies. White societies had the responsibility to educate (IE conquer) the non white societies because the white societies had the burden to bring civilization to the non white societies.

Civilization defined entirely by how the white societies defined it. A "civilized" society that included biolotical warfare, torching of villages, death marches, the reign of terror, mass public executions, torture of dissenters, and a whole lot of atrocities. We don't disagree with you because we "support torture" or whatever other bullshit fallacy you want to bring. We disagree with you and your attempts to "whitewash" (pun intended) history by calling european society the "civilized" one, while totally forgetting their acts which equalled, or exceeded, the events of savage brutality of indian tribes.

We don't support torture, we just reject your ludicrus intention that white european society was any more civilized.

Hence the circular problem. "Civilized" was not an objective term, and to argue that "white society" civilized indian tribes because "white society" was more civilized while ignoring the true atrocities committed by those white societies is the pinnacle of hypocricy. White man's burden isn't an obligation, it's a justification for conquest.

No. If you read my posts you would see that I called European culture savage as well until the age of reason and the widespread recognition of human rights elevated Eurpoean society out of savagery. I said that it was a good thing that Indian culture was similarly civilized. Now I add the point that I believe that Indian culture was probably civilized quicker due to contact with the white man.


If you really think that savargery stopped in Europe during the age of reason, you dont know jack shit about history.


Look up Robspeirre and the Reign of Terror. Then we'll talk.

Yes, I can see why no one takes you seriously. Because I never said or implied in any way that the vast panorama of Native American cultures was uniformly a paragon of human rights.



No. You're saying everyone was evil. But then through some unexplained phenomenon, white people became the only reasonable people in the world and the only ones who had ever thought of human rights. It seems more like you're saying that Europeans were the only ones who weren't evil.

Which is even stupider than saying 'Indians were the only evil ones'.



Except you don't know enough to know that Quaker has never been an official terms for the Friends.

I am getting grouchy now. Neesika got all worked up yesterday because I wrote that Indians committed attorcities. Now he admited that they did and were not the peaceful hippies that he learned that they were from his lying and biased Indian teachers.

The unexplained phenomenon was explained it was the coming of the age of reason and the growing acceptance of human rights.

I know whom the terms "Quakers" and "Friends" refer to.

If you really think that savargery stopped in Europe during the age of reason, you dont know jack shit about history.


Look up Robspeirre and the Reign of Terror. Then we'll talk.

Robspierre did not do a lot of torturing.

Protestans were not around during the Middle Ages. The reformation happend about 67 years after them, actually.


Our point is you are a bigot for making such claims as "The Indians need some civilizing" when we can cleary show many, many ways where the Native Americans were MORE civilized than the Europians. Like women's rights, for starters.

Yes there are many great accomplishments of the Indians. We all know that. The point is that they still had a long way to go in the area of torture which is the most salient to me when it comes to looking at how civilized a people are.

I am getting grouchy now. Neesika got all worked up yesterday because I wrote that Indians committed attorcities.

If that was really all you were saying, than we wouldnt be having a problem.


Youre either faking ignorance or really have no idea about what you posted.

Robspierre did not do a lot of torturing.

When you kill 40 thousand people in a year, your pretty much a savage.

Yes there are many great accomplishments of the Indians. We all know that. The point is that they still had a long way to go in the area of torture which is the most salient to me when it comes to looking at how civilized a people are.

Most Europian kingdoms still tortured. The Spanish for starters.

Robspierre did not do a lot of torturing.

you don't think orchestrating the brutal and public execution of 30 of your political rivals along with tens of thousands of other people in a period of time accurately described as "the Reign of Terror" qualifies?

I mean seriously, look at you. You have seriously tried to claim that the Reign of Terror was not a sadistic blight on human rights. You have serious tried to claim that the Trail of Tears was not a massive violation of basic human principles and one of the most shameful moments in our history. You have focused on attrocious acts by native americans but completely dismissed equally attrocious and sadistic acts committed by europeans.

Not to godwin or anything but what the fuck is next? Your nonsensical dismissal that the holocaust was nothing more than a little disagreement between the germans and the jews? That Stalin's death camps were really Stalin's "hey, this isn't too bad" camps? That all those american citizens the US imprissoned in world war 2 were just invited over for a party that happened to go on for three years?

I am getting grouchy now. Neesika got all worked up yesterday because I wrote that Indians committed attorcities. Now he admited that they did and were not the peaceful hippies that he learned that they were from his lying and biased Indian teachers.

The unexplained phenomenon was explained it was the coming of the age of reason and the growing acceptance of human rights.

I know whom the terms "Quakers" and "Friends" refer to.

You're funny.

I highly doubt that Neesika got worked up yesterday. More likely, she was laughing at you. She was simply pointing out that you kept claiming that Native Americans were all savages, and you did this without providing a shred of evidence. Nor did she claim they were all peace loving hippies.

You do realise that the Iroquois had a constitution for their government as early as 1142, according to Fields and Mann, (American Indian Culture and Research Journal, vol. 21, #2). That would precede the US Constitution by about 600 years, I believe.

And if you know what Quaker and Friends refer to, why did you use the terms incorrectly?

you don't think orchestrating the brutal and public execution of 30 of your political rivals along with tens of thousands of other people in a period of time accurately described as "the Reign of Terror" qualifies?

I mean seriously, look at you. You have seriously tried to claim that the Reign of Terror was not a sadistic blight on human rights. You have serious tried to claim that the Trail of Tears was not a massive violation of basic human principles and one of the most shameful moments in our history. You have focused on attrocious acts by native americans but completely dismissed equally attrocious and sadistic acts committed by europeans.

Not to godwin or anything but what the fuck is next? Your nonsensical dismissal that the holocaust was nothing more than a little disagreement between the germans and the jews? That Stalin's death camps were really Stalin's "hey, this isn't too bad" camps? That all those american citizens the US imprissoned in world war 2 were just invited over for a party that happened to go on for three years?


Im actually waiting for flat out holocaust denial next.

I think that says it all right there. The problem with white man's burden is that it's inherently a circular argument. It's fundamental principle is that the white "civilized" societies had a duty to civilize the "uncivilized" savagages. Except the definition of "civilized" was defined entirely by what the white societies did differently than the non white societies. White societies had the responsibility to educate (IE conquer) the non white societies because the white societies had the burden to bring civilization to the non white societies.

Civilization defined entirely by how the white societies defined it. A "civilized" society that included biolotical warfare, torching of villages, death marches, the reign of terror, mass public executions, torture of dissenters, and a whole lot of atrocities. We don't disagree with you because we "support torture" or whatever other bullshit fallacy you want to bring. We disagree with you and your attempts to "whitewash" (pun intended) history by calling european society the "civilized" one, while totally forgetting their acts which equalled, or exceeded, the events of savage brutality of indian tribes.

We don't support torture, we just reject your ludicrus intention that white european society was any more civilized.

Hence the circular problem. "Civilized" was not an objective term, and to argue that "white society" civilized indian tribes because "white society" was more civilized while ignoring the true atrocities committed by those white societies is the pinnacle of hypocricy. White man's burden isn't an obligation, it's a justification for conquest.

Now that is a good counterargument. I see your point. However, I fear that you paint too ugly of a picture of the cocnept of the white man's burden. It is also an idea that is much more broad in scope than either of use have really described. I think it is one of those very broad and vague terms that means different things to different people or at least, depending on one's point of view, we bring a different emphasis to what the idea meant. To me, as someone who is pretty big on human rights, I see the white man's burden and colonization as a major milestone in the history of human progress towards the universal acceptance of human rights.

At the time, I am sure that many people looked at the concept from a humanitarian and religious perspective. I think that mission work was associated with the concept as was philanthropy such as the construction of schools and hospitals and the training of physicians. We still see this samspirit today. Oprah built a school in Africa. My friend sends a donation to an African school district each month. Doctors Without Borders is a similar embodiment of this spirit that continues to this day.

Also, there is the economic perspective. It is no doubt true that colonialism strengthened the economy of North America and the rest of the world. The corporation is just one such example of economic improvements that came about through colonialism.

Did certain white men act badly in the course of all this? Well of course. But we cannot disparage a concept merely because of a few bad apples. This is espescially the case when we see that the bad apples were far outnumbered by the good ones. Perhaps even more important is the legacy that we inherited from this concept.

Before colonialism there was never a real spirit of global philanthropy outside of organized religions. In a sense the Islamic and Christian crusades were sort of global philanthropic motivated events but not really in the same way and certainly not to the same degree.

Protestans were not around during the Middle Ages. The reformation happend about 67 years after them, actually.


Our point is you are a bigot for making such claims as "The Indians need some civilizing" when we can cleary show many, many ways where the Native Americans were MORE civilized than the Europians. Like women's rights, for starters.

The catholics persecuted Protestants during the Renaissance. They persecuted "heretics" prior to that.

Now that is a good counterargument. I see your point. However, I fear that you paint too ugly of a picture of the cocnept of the white man's burden. It is also an idea that is much more broad in scope than either of use have really described. I think it is one of those very broad and vague terms that means different things to different people or at least, depending on one's point of view, we bring a different emphasis to what the idea meant. To me, as someone who is pretty big on human rights, I see the white man's burden and colonization as a major milestone in the history of human progress towards the universal acceptance of human rights.

So only white people are capable of reason, progress, and acceptance of human rights. Gotcha.

At the time, I am sure that many people looked at the concept from a humanitarian and religious perspective. I think that mission work was associated with the concept as was philanthropy such as the construction of schools and hospitals and the training of physicians. We still see this samspirit today. Oprah built a school in Africa. My friend sends a donation to an African school district each month. Doctors Without Borders is a similar embodiment of this spirit that continues to this day.

Black Woman's Burden?

Never mind that the reason Africa needs all this help is because the white man brought "civilization" and "human rights" to Africa...

Also, there is the economic perspective. It is no doubt true that colonialism strengthened the economy of North America and the rest of the world. The corporation is just one such example of economic improvements that came about through colonialism.

Indeed. Actions are acceptable if it benefits us and fucks everyone else.

Did certain white men act badly in the course of all this? Well of course. But we cannot disparage a concept merely because of a few bad apples. This is espescially the case when we see that the bad apples were far outnumbered by the good ones. Perhaps even more important is the legacy that we inherited from this concept.

So, when white people act poorly, its just a few bad apples When the dirty redskins act poorly, their culture is irrepairablly crippled and must be "civilized". Gotcha.

Before colonialism there was never a real spirit of global philanthropy outside of organized religions. In a sense the Islamic and Christian crusades were sort of global philanthropic motivated events but not really in the same way and certainly not to the same degree.

1. There was no Islamic "crusade"
2. Did you just defend the Crusades?

The catholics persecuted Protestants during the Renaissance. They persecuted "heretics" prior to that.

Protestants killed catholics in mass too. It wasnt really a one sided thing...

You're funny.

I highly doubt that Neesika got worked up yesterday. More likely, she was laughing at you. She was simply pointing out that you kept claiming that Native Americans were all savages, and you did this without providing a shred of evidence. Nor did she claim they were all peace loving hippies.

You do realise that the Iroquois had a constitution for their government as early as 1142, according to Fields and Mann, (American Indian Culture and Research Journal, vol. 21, #2). That would precede the US Constitution by about 600 years, I believe.

And if you know what Quaker and Friends refer to, why did you use the terms incorrectly?

I did not know the date of the IC's constitution. I knew they had one. It was the model of ours and of the New England League.

I use Quaker because I like the word (and the oatmeal yum) and because people know who you are referring to when you use it.

I do not know if all indians were savages. I really do not know much about the Hopis for example although my parents do though because that is their bag.

By the turn of the 19th century the USA had a constitution that prohibited cruel punishments. France had the Rights of Man and the guillotine which it put to good use but hey at least it was humane.

Protestants killed catholics in mass too. It wasnt really a one sided thing...

Did you mean en masse, as in 'in massive numbers', or did they kill the Catholics while the Catholics were attending mass?

By the turn of the 19th century the USA had a constitution that prohibited cruel punishments. France had the Rights of Man and the guillotine which it put to good use but hey at least it was humane.




Public beheading is humane?


You are funny.

Did you mean en masse, as in 'in massive numbers', or did they kill the Catholics while the Catholics were attending mass?

en mass....



*shakes fist at GoG*

Thank you. Neesika, if I had simply told you this yesterday you would have screamed at me for not quoting some source. I agree with this 100%. In elementary school we were taught this stuff because the Iroquois are an important part of our history. Why do you assume that I am debating from a position of ignorance? Maybe you need to study Indian history more. I do not know. I am glad that you started though with this book. Hopefully, you now understand that Indians were some pretty nasty violent folks and it is a good thing that they are no longer running around torturing captives to death.I'd say it's because you claim this is somehow different than what was going on in Europe at the time.

Did you mean en masse, as in 'in massive numbers', or did they kill the Catholics while the Catholics were attending mass?

actually...both.

You're funny.

I highly doubt that Neesika got worked up yesterday. More likely, she was laughing at you. She was simply pointing out that you kept claiming that Native Americans were all savages, and you did this without providing a shred of evidence. Nor did she claim they were all peace loving hippies.


She kept on wanting me to cite some source for the idea that Indians tortured captives with fire or otherwise. People that do this are savages. What is wrong with you people why can't you get that?

She kept on wanting me to cite some source for the idea that Indians tortured captives with fire or otherwise.

You mean she actually wanted you to back up your assertion with documented facts?

That fucking bitch!

I did not know the date of the IC's constitution. I knew they had one. It was the model of ours and of the New England League.

I use Quaker because I like the word (and the oatmeal yum) and because people know who you are referring to when you use it.

I do not know if all indians were savages. I really do not know much about the Hopis for example although my parents do though because that is their bag.

By the turn of the 19th century the USA had a constitution that prohibited cruel punishments. France had the Rights of Man and the guillotine which it put to good use but hey at least it was humane."By the turn of the 19th Century" is pretty long after "when the white man came to the America's."

Edit: Also, drowning people instead of shooting or guillotining them, as happened during the Terror (i.e. post-Revolution France) is savage as well.

She kept on wanting me to cite some source for the idea that Indians tortured captives with fire or otherwise. People that do this are savages. What is wrong with you people why can't you get that?

Torture is savage.


So are starvation marches, mass murder, and public executions.


Why cant you get that?

You mean she actually wanted you to back up your assertion with documented facts?

That fucking bitch!

First she doesnt make you a sandwich, NOW she is demanding sources for claims? Wtf?

"By the turn of the 19th Century" is pretty long after "when the white man came to the America's."

Yes but I never said anything about that point in time other than to say that at that stage of history everybody was pretty much a bunch of savages. I was talking about how it was good that the civilizing influences of the age of reason were able to spread to indian culture. Similarly, it was spread to other cultures as well as part of colonialism.

Thank you. Neesika, if I had simply told you this yesterday you would have screamed at me for not quoting some source. I agree with this 100%. In elementary school we were taught this stuff because the Iroquois are an important part of our history. Why do you assume that I am debating from a position of ignorance? Maybe you need to study Indian history more. I do not know. I am glad that you started though with this book. Hopefully, you now understand that Indians were some pretty nasty violent folks and it is a good thing that they are no longer running around torturing captives to death.

I assume you are speaking from ignorance because you have demonstrated nothing but. You claim to have learned this, that and the other thing, but you have proven none of it. It is up to you to prove to us that you have anything to back up your vague and generalised claims...the 'benefit of the doubt' does not extend to assuming you have brilliant, factually based arguments despite all evidence to the contrary.

I understand that you are myopic in your view of aboriginal people, picking out the parts you find 'bad' and ignoring all else. I understand that you apply the opposite standard to your own people.

I put myself out as an expert in the field one, because I have grown up my entire life as part of an aboriginal community, and two, because I am an expert in the field. This doesn't mean I know absolutely everything there is to know about every aboriginal nation...that is frankly impossible. But I know the pre-contact and post-contact histories of most of the aboriginal nations in Canada and the US, and I have extensive cultural experience, as I live as traditionally as possible. You put yourself out as very knowlegeable, and it is as offensive as these idiots here who think because they've looked at a Criminal Code, they are suddenly qualified to be lawyers.

Torture is savage.


So are starvation marches, mass murder, and public executions.


Why cant you get that?

Starvation marches are bad m'kay. Murder is bad m'kay. Public executions??? I am not sure what is so bad about that as long as they are humane and follow a trial where the defendant has substantive due process. In fact, I think that public executions are a good idea because of transparency concerns. I think most governmental action should be done in an open and public manner. I am a fan of transparency.

http://middle.usm.k12.wi.us/Faculty/markwald/handoutAtrocities.htm :D

And for anyone who still says that the Europeans were not barbaric, I advise you to read accounts of the torture conducted during Napoléon's invasion of Spain. For visual confirmation, see Francisco Goya's paintings and sketches of the events.

I hate to say this, Neesika, but they got most of that from the Spanish.

Why would you hate to say that?

And you're wrong. There are many oral histories of this practice long before the Spaniards stepped foot in the Americas.

I did not know the date of the IC's constitution.

I'm gald you are at least admitting your ignorance.

I knew they had one. It was the model of ours and of the New England League.

No, it wasn't. Most Europeans and settlers at the time didn't even realise the Iroquois had a constitution, so it could not have been a model for your Constitution. For someone who has supposedly read a lot of history, you seem to have difficulty separating myth from fact.

I do not know if all indians were savages.

That's right, you don't. So it would be stupid of you to believe that they were in need of civilising.

By the turn of the 19th century the USA had a constitution that prohibited cruel punishments. France had the Rights of Man and the guillotine which it put to good use but hey at least it was humane.

By the turn of the 19th century, it was still legal to kill an Indian in most parts of the western USA.

Public executions??? I am not sure what is so bad about that as long as they are humane and follow a trial where the defendant has substantive due process. In fact, I think that public executions are a good idea because of transparency concerns. I think most governmental action should be done in an open and public manner. I am a fan of transparency.



:rolleyes:

Yes but I never said anything about that point in time other than to say that at that stage of history everybody was pretty much a bunch of savages. I was talking about how it was good that the civilizing influences of the age of reason were able to spread to indian culture. Similarly, it was spread to other cultures as well as part of colonialism.
What civilizing influences? Seriously?

I assume you are speaking from ignorance because you have demonstrated nothing but. You claim to have learned this, that and the other thing, but you have proven none of it. It is up to you to prove to us that you have anything to back up your vague and generalised claims...the 'benefit of the doubt' does not extend to assuming you have brilliant, factually based arguments despite all evidence to the contrary.

I understand that you are myopic in your view of aboriginal people, picking out the parts you find 'bad' and ignoring all else. I understand that you apply the opposite standard to your own people.

I put myself out as an expert in the field one, because I have grown up my entire life as part of an aboriginal community, and two, because I am an expert in the field. This doesn't mean I know absolutely everything there is to know about every aboriginal nation...that is frankly impossible. But I know the pre-contact and post-contact histories of most of the aboriginal nations in Canada and the US, and I have extensive cultural experience, as I live as traditionally as possible. You put yourself out as very knowlegeable, and it is as offensive as these idiots here who think because they've looked at a Criminal Code, they are suddenly qualified to be lawyers.

Well if you are so knowledgeable why did you demand a source for the point that Indians did some nasty stuff. If you are so knowledgable on Indian history, why can you not admit that it is good that Indians do not torture captives anymore? When did I ever say that Indians did not do anything good? Perhaps you read way too much into what I was saying.

Starvation marches are bad m'kay. Murder is bad m'kay. Public executions??? I am not sure what is so bad about that as long as they are humane and follow a trial where the defendant has substantive due process. In fact, I think that public executions are a good idea because of transparency concerns. I think most governmental action should be done in an open and public manner. I am a fan of transparency.Why bring up the French Revolution to support your argument then? Unless you claim that the trials were fair and underwent due process. In that case, your time would be better spent learning about European history than posting on a forum.

Well if you are so knowledgeable why did you demand a source for the point that Indians did some nasty stuff. If you are so knowledgable on Indian history, why can you not admit that it is good that Indians do not torture captives anymore? When did I ever say that Indians did not do anything good? Perhaps you read way too much into what I was saying.

She never said "Man its too bad we dont torture captives anymore!" She said that the Native Americans were not "barbaric savages" like you claimed and that white people were just as barbaric which you continuously are refuting.

Well if you are so knowledgeable why did you demand a source for the point that Indians did some nasty stuff. You made a point, you are obliged to support it when called on it. You see, this is a bit like poker, only it doesn't cost anyone to call a bluff. That's meant to discourage bluffing and spewing counter-factual bullshit.

Now, I know you are essentially a troll GF, that's pretty much been established, but I'll respond to this anyway:

I am getting grouchy now. Neesika got all worked up yesterday because I wrote that Indians committed attorcities. Now he admited that they did and were not the peaceful hippies that he learned that they were from his lying and biased Indian teachers.
I never claimed we were peaceful hippies. That sort of school of thought, the 'noble savage' crap is almost as offensive as people like you who just call us savage. Almost. I am intimately aware with my people's history, which is something you are unable to claim. That means I know of the good and the bad, what worked, what didn't, what changed, what stayed the same. You weren't claiming we committed atrocities. You said we were evil, full stop. It was a lame argument to make, made only lamer by pretty much every follow up post you've subjected us to since. Oh, and I WISH I had some Indian teachers when I was growing up. I got to learn in the white schools how the Europeans apparently saved us from wiping one another out because of internecine warfare. Wow...too bad those teachers didn't understand the history behind the Peace River, where the Cree and Stoney came together centuries before to sign a peace treaty that has never been broken. Whew! Thank goodness for European intervention, who knows what we would have gotten up to next!

And if you know what Quaker and Friends refer to, why did you use the terms incorrectly?

Oh GoG, you're so dense! He obviously knows what he's talking about, even when to the uneducated eye, it appears that he is talking directly out of his ass. Sheesh, way to make assumptions about him.

Now, I know you are essentially a troll GF, that's pretty much been established, but I'll respond to this anyway:


I never claimed we were peaceful hippies. That sort of school of thought, the 'noble savage' crap is almost as offensive as people like you who just call us savage. Almost. I am intimately aware with my people's history, which is something you are unable to claim. That means I know of the good and the bad, what worked, what didn't, what changed, what stayed the same. You weren't claiming we committed atrocities. You said we were evil, full stop. It was a lame argument to make, made only lamer by pretty much every follow up post you've subjected us to since. Oh, and I WISH I had some Indian teachers when I was growing up. I got to learn in the white schools how the Europeans apparently saved us from wiping one another out because of internecine warfare. Wow...too bad those teachers didn't understand the history behind the Peace River, where the Cree and Stoney came together centuries before to sign a peace treaty that has never been broken. Whew! Thank goodness for European intervention, who knows what we would have gotten up to next!




Psh. Redskin savage.

Oh GoG, you're so dense! He obviously knows what he's talking about, even when to the uneducated eye, it appears that he is talking directly out of his ass. Sheesh, way to make assumptions about him.

I'm not getting a sandwich either, am I?

She kept on wanting me to cite some source for the idea that Indians tortured captives with fire or otherwise. People that do this are savages. What is wrong with you people why can't you get that?

Because when you make claims, you need to back them up.

I know of specific examples, I can quote sources, I can back myself up. I even modelled that for you, so perhaps you could pick up on how it's done. You never said WHO did this, you never provided a source. You blanket claimed that 'Indians' (feather, not dot) did this, once again showing that you seem to be unable to distinguish between us.

Why would you hate to say that?

Because correcting people irks me.

And you're wrong. There are many oral histories of this practice long before the Spaniards stepped foot in the Americas.
But it was not as wide-spread. For instance, although some maintain that scalping existed long before Europeans came to America, I can guarantee you that most of the scalping done by the Apaches was in retaliation to that done against them (bounty-scalping).

Well if you are so knowledgeable why did you demand a source for the point that Indians did some nasty stuff. If you are so knowledgable on Indian history, why can you not admit that it is good that Indians do not torture captives anymore? When did I ever say that Indians did not do anything good? Perhaps you read way too much into what I was saying.

*stifles laughter*
Hmmm, let me try to explain this:

I am knowledgeable about aboriginal history and culture.

You have provided no evidence that you know jack shit on the subject.

Following me? Or did you seriously suggest that I do your arguing for you? Really?

You called us, all of us, evil, and in need of civilizing. This suggests very strongly that you believe we were inherently bad, and that our culture in its entirety needed to be swept away in order to become not-evil. If that is not what you meant, perhaps you need to work on your communication skills.

I'm not getting a sandwich either, am I?

Un completo, con tomate, mayonesa y palta? Sure, coming right up:D

Because correcting people irks me.


But it was not as wide-spread. For instance, although some maintain that scalping existed long before Europeans came to America, I can guarantee you that most of the scalping done by the Apaches was in retaliation to that done against them (bounty-scalping).

Yeah the French were fans of scalping, because it proved numbers of kills, and they essentially demanded it of their allies at the time. It fit into spiritual beliefs though, as taking trophies was always a powerful thing.

Yeah the French were fans of scalping, because it proved numbers of kills, and they essentially demanded it of their allies at the time. It fit into spiritual beliefs though, as taking trophies was always a powerful thing.

It may have been a spiritual belief, but if Indians were not so mistreated, you would never have had people like Geronimo. His father, his mother his wife, and his kids were all slaughtered. He did some terrible things himself, but it was the murdering of his family that made him what he was.

What civilizing influences? Seriously?

human rights

human rights
What human rights? When were they actually exported?

Complete the following sentence:
"Support for my wild claims can be found at ________________"

human rights

Oh you mean like equality of the sexes? Oh wait, we had that, tens of thousands of years before any European came up with it. You mean like freedom of religion? Oh wait, we had that. You mean like a system where leaders were agreed upon by all the people, and could be removed? Hmm, yeah, had that. Gee...good thing you guys came, took all that away, and civilized us!

She never said "Man its too bad we dont torture captives anymore!" She said that the Native Americans were not "barbaric savages" like you claimed and that white people were just as barbaric which you continuously are refuting.

No. Neeskia got her feathers ruffled when I pointed out that they did nasty things. She wanted proof of that. It was like asking me to give a source for the sky being blue.

No. Neeskia got her feathers ruffled when I pointed out that they did nasty things. She wanted proof of that. It was like asking me to give a source for the sky being blue.

No, thats not why she got pissed. Are you lying or do you really see yourself as the victim here?

human rights

So the colonists brought human rights? Those same colonists who believed in child labor, femal disenfranchisement, burning "witches" and making it a crime to work on sunday?

If I recall, there was another thing the european colonists did that was a shining example of human right. I can't remember though. What was it again? Oh, right.

Slavery.

I mean, really, do you understand this point? Do you get what I"m throwing out to you? You argue that colonists brought "civility" which you equate to respect for human rights. Do you actually recognize that those same colonists burned people at the stake, forced entire societies off their land and placed them in force starvation marches, engaged in biological warfare, exploited children, prevented women from voting or holding jobs, enforced religious laws under penalty of prison or death and actually thought it was acceptable to own other people. People who had legal racial segregation until the fucking 60s. How in the world you can argue that europeans "brought over the concept of human rights" when they still practiced slavery.

Do you get that? Slavery? The legal regime that denies another human being personhood is pretty much the worst violation of human rights you can get.

Oh you mean like equality of the sexes? Oh wait, we had that, tens of thousands of years before any European came up with it. You mean like freedom of religion? Oh wait, we had that. You mean like a system where leaders were agreed upon by all the people, and could be removed? Hmm, yeah, had that. Gee...good thing you guys came, took all that away, and civilized us!

Equality and political freedom are for barbarians.

*stifles laughter*
Hmmm, let me try to explain this:

I am knowledgeable about aboriginal history and culture.

You have provided no evidence that you know jack shit on the subject.

Following me? Or did you seriously suggest that I do your arguing for you? Really?

You called us, all of us, evil, and in need of civilizing. This suggests very strongly that you believe we were inherently bad, and that our culture in its entirety needed to be swept away in order to become not-evil. If that is not what you meant, perhaps you need to work on your communication skills.

I never said all Indians needed civilizing. There are hundreds of indian tribes! I do not know if every tribe was nasty and evil. How could I know that? I said that indians needed civilizing. Are you one of those people who believes that there are people that believe that all members of a group of people on a continent share the same values? That is the straw man of racism, it does not exist anywhere, so quit assuming it exists everywhere you can possibly find some text that you can read it into.

I said that indians needed civilizing.

You calim the indians needed "civilizing". You say that the europeans were the entities that brought "civilizing". You define civilizing as showing appreciation for human rights.

Ergo you say that the indians were taught by the europeans to appreciate human rights.

The europeans.

The ones that burned witches and owned slaves.

Let's get at the crux of this right fucking now, shall we. Answer me this question with a yes, or a no. no pontificating, no elaboration, just a yes or a no. Do you believe the european colonists and settlers respected human rights more than the native american population? That's all I want you to answer. Is it your contention that the europeans who arrived respected human rights more than the indians? yes or no?

I never said all Indians needed civilizing. There are hundreds of indian tribes! I do not know if every tribe was nasty and evil. How could I know that? I said that indians needed civilizing.



The bolded part directly contradicts everything tat comes before it.


Not every tribe was nasty and evil, but those damn Indians needed civilizing.

So the colonists brought human rights? Those same colonists who believed in child labor, femal disenfranchisement, burning "witches" and making it a crime to work on sunday?

If I recall, there was another thing the european colonists did that was a shining example of human right. I can't remember though. What was it again? Oh, right.

Slavery.

I mean, really, do you understand this point? Do you get what I"m throwing out to you? You argue that colonists brought "civility" which you equate to respect for human rights. Do you actually recognize that those same colonists burned people at the stake, forced entire societies off their land and placed them in force starvation marches, engaged in biological warfare, exploited children, prevented women from voting or holding jobs, enforced religious laws under penalty of prison or death and actually thought it was acceptable to own other people. People who had legal racial segregation until the fucking 60s. How in the world you can argue that europeans "brought over the concept of human rights" when they still practiced slavery.

Do you get that? Slavery? The legal regime that denies another human being personhood is pretty much the worst violation of human rights you can get.

The Quakers were pretty ahead of their time. Pennsylvania never forbade blacks from voting. I do not think that slavery was ever legal in Pennsylvania except in that wierd Dred Scott kind of way.

The Quakers were pretty ahead of their time.

Good for the fucking quakers. That isn't what I asked you. I'm fairly sure there were indian tribes who were far less violent and far more co-operative than others. That's not the point. you keep trying to pick examples of one tiny group who might have been a little better off at protecting human rights than the rest, but that's not what I asked you.

Do you understand that many of the europeans and those who decended from them exploited children, denied women rights, and owned slaves? yes or no.

No. Neeskia got her feathers ruffled when I pointed out that they did nasty things. She wanted proof of that. It was like asking me to give a source for the sky being blue.

Awwww poor baby! I ask you to be specific, to provide sources...and you get all sad and hard-done by! You must have wept a lot during your 'university years' when called on your 'sky blue' statements.

You calim the indians needed "civilizing". You say that the europeans were the entities that brought "civilizing". You define civilizing as showing appreciation for human rights.

Ergo you say that the indians were taught by the europeans to appreciate human rights.

The europeans.

The ones that burned witches and owned slaves.

Let's get at the crux of this right fucking now, shall we. Answer me this question with a yes, or a no. no pontificating, no elaboration, just a yes or a no. Do you believe the european colonists and settlers respected human rights more than the native american population? That's all I want you to answer. Is it your contention that the europeans who arrived respected human rights more than the indians? yes or no?

My answer is yes if we are talking about Quakers. My answer is "I think so" if we are talking about the Rhode Island puritans. My answer is no for the rest of the colonists of massachesettes. My answer is probably a "no" for the colonists of the other colonies.

The Quakers were pretty ahead of their time. Pennsylvania never forbade blacks from voting. I do not think that slavery was ever legal in Pennsylvania except in that wierd Dred Scott kind of way.

You still burnt witches and didnt allow religious freedom.

I never said all Indians needed civilizing. .... I said that indians needed civilizing. Ignoring the rest of your poorly worded blabbering...huh?

I do not think that slavery was ever legal in Pennsylvania except in that wierd Dred Scott kind of way.

And you'd be wrong. Pennsylvania was founded in 1677, slavery was not outlawed in Pennsyvlania until 1780.

In fact:

In Penn's new city of Philadelphia, African slaves were at work by 1684, and in rural Chester County by 1687. Between 1729 and 1758, Chester County had 104 slaves on 58 farms, with 70 percent of the slaveowners likely Quakers. By 1693, Africans were so numerous in the colony's capital that the Philadelphia Council complained of "the tumultuous gatherings of the Negroes in the town of Philadelphia."

Except for the cargo of 150 slaves aboard the "Bristol" (1684), most black importation was a matter of small lots brought up from Barbados and Jamaica by local merchants who traded with the sugar islands. Prominent Philadelphia Quaker families like the Carpenters, Dickinsons, Norrises, and Claypooles brought slaves to the colony in this way. By 1700, one in 10 Philadelphians owned slaves. Slaves were used in the manufacturing sector, notably the iron works, and in shipbuilding.
. . .

Not only was colonial Pennsylvania a slave-owning society, but the lives of free blacks in the colony were controlled by law. The restrictions on slaves were mild, by Northern standards, but those on freemen were comparatively strict. The restrictions had begun almost with the colony itself. After 1700, when Pennsylvania was not yet 20 years old, blacks, free or slave, were tried in special courts, without the benefit of a jury.

For a people who later protested against the fugitive slave laws, Pennsylvanians, when they had slaves themselves as property, used the full power of the law to protect them. "An Act for the better Regulation of Negroes" passed in the 1725-26 session, set especially high penalties for free blacks who harbored runaway slaves or received property stolen from masters. The penalties in such cases were potentially much higher than those applied to whites, and if the considerable fines that might accrue could not be paid, the justices had the power to order a free black person put into servitude.

Under other provisions of the 1725-26 act, free negroes who married whites were to be sold into slavery for life; for mere fornication or adultery involving blacks and whites, the penalty for the black person was to be sold as a servant for seven years. Whites in such cases faced different or lighter punishment. The law effectively blocked marriage between the races in Pennsylvania, but fornication continued, as the state's burgeoning mulatto population attested.

. . .


But throughout Pennsylvania colony, the children of free blacks, without exception, were bound out by the local justices of the peace until age 24 (if male) or 21 (if female). All in all, the "free" blacks of colonial Pennsylvania led severely circumscribed lives; they had no control even over their own family arrangements, and they could be put back into servitude for "laziness" or petty crimes, at the mercy of the local authorities.

It goes on to say:

but it was only in 1758 that Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of the Society of Friends made buying or selling a slave a bar to leadership in the Quaker meetings. In 1774 it became cause for disowning. Moral arguments were advanced against slave-owning. But the main motive for the Society's shift against slavery seems to have been an internal clash of values between the few wealthy Quakers who owned the slaves and the many poor ones who did not.

The surrender of slavery was a minor disruption to most Pennsylvania Quakers' lives. Slavery in Pennsylvania had died of the market economy long before Quaker morality shifted against it. Despite the spike in the 1760s, there was never enough critical mass of slaveholding in Pennsylvania to produce a slave-based agricultural economy. In 1730, about one in 11 Pennsylvanians had been slaves; by 1779 the figure was no more than one in 30. The lack of a support structure by this time prevented it from catching on, even during the peak of slave importation.
. . .

The abolition bill was made more restrictive during the debates over it -- it originally freed daughters of slave women at 18, sons at 21. By the time it passed, it was upped to a flat 28. That meant it was possible for a Pennsylvania slave's daughter born in February 1780 to live her life in bondage, and if she had a child at 40, the child would remain a slave until 1848.[3] There's no record of this happening, but the "emancipation" law allowed it. It was, as the title of one article has it, "philanthropy at bargain prices."

Despite the lack of economic interest in slavery, and the absence of a political party to defend it, the Pennsylvania abolition law met serious opposition. The bill also made blacks equal under the state's laws, removed the prohibition on interracial marriage, and allowed free blacks to testify against whites in state courts. The implications of this aroused indignation in many quarters.

. . . .

The act that abolished slavery in Pennsylvania freed no slaves outright, and relics of slavery may have lingered in the state almost until the Civil War. There were 795 slaves in Pennsylvania in 1810, 211 in 1820, 403 or 386 (the count was disputed) in 1830, and 64 in 1840, the last year census worksheets in the northern states included a line for "slaves." The definition of slavery seems to have blurred in the later counts. The two "slaves" counted in 1840 in Lancaster County turned out to have been freed years before, though they were still living on the properties of their former masters.



Source (http://www.slavenorth.com/pennsylvania.htm)

So much for your precious freedom loving quakers.

Good for the fucking quakers. That isn't what I asked you. I'm fairly sure there were indian tribes who were far less violent and far more co-operative than others. That's not the point. you keep trying to pick examples of one tiny group who might have been a little better off at protecting human rights than the rest, but that's not what I asked you.

Do you understand that many of the europeans and those who decended from them exploited children, denied women rights, and owned slaves? yes or no.

Exploited children???? Who exploited children? Anyway, women's rights were pretty limited all over the world unless you look at it from their prosepctive which was the protection of the right of women to be separated from much of the goings on of public society so that they can focus on the family needs.

Are you upset that the Iriquois did not give men the right to vote or do you think that is pretty cool because you are a feminist if you are all weapy eyed over women's rights. Sorry, I am getting grouchy. I just do not like people to try to attack the history of my state by saying that we are to blame for what other colonists did.

I am pretty sure that there were Indians who owned slaves.

Exploited children???? Who exploited children? Anyway, women's rights were pretty limited all over the world unless you look at it from their prosepctive which was the protection of the right of women to be separated from much of the goings on of public society so that they can focus on the family needs.

Are you upset that the Iriquois did not give men the right to vote or do you think that is pretty cool because you are a feminist if you are all weapy eyed over women's rights. Sorry, I am getting grouchy. I just do not like people to try to attack the history of my state by saying that we are to blame for what other colonists did.

I am pretty sure that there were Indians who owned slaves.

If you dont want people to attack the history of your state, dont constantly preach its superiority to an entire fucking race of people.

I'm gald you are at least admitting your ignorance.



No, it wasn't. Most Europeans and settlers at the time didn't even realise the Iroquois had a constitution, so it could not have been a model for your Constitution. For someone who has supposedly read a lot of history, you seem to have difficulty separating myth from fact.



That's right, you don't. So it would be stupid of you to believe that they were in need of civilising.



By the turn of the 19th century, it was still legal to kill an Indian in most parts of the western USA.

No, the Iriquois Constitution fascinated Franklin and it was a model for the Albany Plan. Remember that political cartoon about the cut up snake and the join or die caption that you should have learned about in school?

human rights
Once, again:http://middle.usm.k12.wi.us/Faculty/markwald/handoutAtrocities.htm

You still burnt witches and didnt allow religious freedom.

Lies!

And you'd be wrong. Pennsylvania was founded in 1677, slavery was not outlawed in Pennsyvlania until 1780.

In fact:



Source (http://www.slavenorth.com/pennsylvania.htm)

So much for your precious freedom loving quakers.

Lies! Even if this is true we can see how history repeats itself. All of some parts of present day Philadelphia are little more than tulmultuous gatherings of free negroes.

My answer is yes if we are talking about Quakers.

Your precious Quakers owned slaves in Pennsylvania for over 100 years.

And you'd be wrong. Pennsylvania was founded in 1677, slavery was not outlawed in Pennsyvlania until 1780.

In fact:



It goes on to say:





Source (http://www.slavenorth.com/pennsylvania.htm)

So much for your precious freedom loving quakers.



I figure if I quote it you have to respond to it.

Lies!

Penn did not offer settlers religious liberty in the modern sense of the term, for Pennsylvania's charter restricted the right to vote and to hold political office to Protestants. Pennsylvania denied those rights to Jews and Muslims, who did not believe in Christ as savior, and to Catholics, who were subservient to the Pope.

you're done here.

Lies! Even if this is true we can see how history repeats itself. All of some parts of present day Philadelphia are little more than tulmultuous gatherings of free negroes.



Lies? ROFLMAO. Ok. Source? Really. I want a source showing that the Quackers in Penn never owned slaves and were the epitomy of human rights and freedom.

you're done here.

Bravo. I was looking for that very source, but you beat me to it.

Exploited children???? Who exploited children? Anyway, women's rights were pretty limited all over the world Oddly enough, not true among most aboriginal nations (I say most, on the off chance that there is one out there that treated women as badly as the Europeans did...I know of no such nation) Even the patrilineal nations were not patriarchical, but rather egalitarian. Funny that.

Are you upset that the Iriquois did not give men the right to vote or do you think that is pretty cool because you are a feminist if you are all weapy eyed over women's rights.
Huh? The Iroquois are not and never have been a matriarchy...women are Clan Mothers, but men also hold positions of power, and both of the sexes have equal 'voting' rights and always have. So what are you blabbering about now?



I am pretty sure that there were Indians who owned slaves.It's true, even my own people, the Cree sometimes had Dene or Blackfoot slaves, captured in war. However, these 'slaves' could be bought back by their families, or could marry into the tribe if they chose. Their status of slaves were more akin to being prisoners of war actually. You know, forced to work, like most POWs throughout history have been made to do. We do not have a word for slave in Cree, nor is there one in Anishnaabe...but there are words for prisoners...which suggests that the term 'slaves' was one coined by Europeans who loved that practice.

tulmultuous gatherings of free negroes.

See, now you're getting somewhere...I prefer my trolls to be articulate, please keep it up!

See, now you're getting somewhere...I prefer my trolls to be articulate, please keep it up!

it does get disappointing doesn't it though? I mean to be a troll, to be a REALLY good one, you have to actually maintain some way out. You can't back your way into a corner. If you're going to troll, do it in a way where you can always maintain your position, don't try to go the "pennsylvania didn't have slaves!" route when it's easily demonstrated that it did. For 200 years.

it does get disappointing doesn't it though? I mean to be a troll, to be a REALLY good one, you have to actually maintain some way out. You can't back your way into a corner. If you're going to troll, do it in a way where you can always maintain your position, don't try to go the "pennsylvania didn't have slaves!" route when it's easily demonstrated that it did. For 200 years.

Well and it's nice if a troll would actually pull out SOME support for his position, even if the support was from a ridiculously biased source. I've always maintained that trolling is an artform, and most of the 'trolls' here are naught but doodlers.

Well, good night folks, have a great weekend, and GF...try to wipe the spittle from your chin, m'kay?
Take care Art!

I feel that Europeans and later Americans did terrible things to the natives of the Americas. I don't feel that it was a good thing like some people.*looks at dukesberryshire*. But, I think in the end, the world became a better place for it,what with technology and all that. But if I could go back in time and either make Columbus make it or not, I don't know what I would do. There where many horrifying things resulting from that, but also some of the best things in the world too. I'm siding with letting Columbus discover the new world right now because if he didn't I wouldn't be alive...


But I digress, what do you think and what would you do? (PS:You can't change anything but if he made it or not. That's it!)

Considering that my existence hinges (presumably) on events happening exactly as they did... I would opt that they indeed happened as they did.

Additionally, yes Europeans did terrible things... but it's not like they invaded a peace-loving hippie land, but rather a brutal, and belligerant society, in short, it's not like Europeans were the only ones doing the killing.

I would also like to add that probably the biggest killer of 'native' Americans was illness to which they were not accustomed, and that would've happened regardless of European jerkiness.

Note: "European" as used above actually refers mostly to Spanish and Portugese peoples, The British and French were much more 'nice' to the natives, and the Germans weren't yet the Germans as a whole.

On the one hand, the Indians were probably more progressive than the Europeans in a few ways, if we're applying modern standards of environmentalism or civil rights. But, on the other hand...

*enjoys modern technology*

...the White Man wasn't all bad.

but rather a brutal, and belligerant society, in short, it's not like Europeans were the only ones doing the killing.




And so it begins again.:rolleyes:


Oh well, at least you have the decency to admit that the white man isnt an angel.

Well and it's nice if a troll would actually pull out SOME support for his position, even if the support was from a ridiculously biased source. I've always maintained that trolling is an artform, and most of the 'trolls' here are naught but doodlers.

Well, good night folks, have a great weekend, and GF...try to wipe the spittle from your chin, m'kay?
Take care Art!

*comes out of bunker*

Is it over?

Wow...they pwned the shit outta GF

*comes out of bunker*

Is it over?

Wow...they pwned the shit outta GF

Indeed we did. That was fun.


Props to Neo Art and Neesika.

And so it begins again.:rolleyes:


Oh well, at least you have the decency to admit that the white man isnt an angel.

Well, it would be innacurate to say that any culture wasn't brutal.

"Hey, let's impersonate these guys' deity so we can take all their money!" is pretty mean, and yes, Europeans (again, mostly Spanish and Port.) were big jerks... but I wanted to add that they didn't invade a friendly tea party or anything... war and brutality was common to both.

I am pretty sure that there were Indians who owned slaves.

yeah thats what they learned from the europeans.

These are questions you should ask the French scouts who were leading the local (i.e. aboriginal) troops, as this was part of a French raid on an English outpost during the Seven Years War, also known in Britain as the French and Indian War.

My point is that you can not use this as an example of savagery among Native Americans, as it was a French action against English civilians.

The Amish are Swiss-Germans not English. So how is it a raid against English civilians? To this day the Amish refuse to speak English and maintain their German as their main language amongst themselves, using English only when dealing with "outsiders."

My thread is still the bestest w00t!!

Discussing this at this point in history is rather like asking "if I could get back the turd that I laid in the crapper last night, what would I do with it?"

:D

And throw in a healthy dose of white man's burden. "those filthy savages were LUCKY we conqured them, they were obviously too primitive to take care of themselves"

We brought gunpowder, didn't we? Or should I say funpowder?

...sorry. Anyway, since I assume the best in people but the worst in society, I have to wonder what the Native Americans would have done if they had the opportunity that the Europeans did. A part of me thinks that they would've gone for it. Not because I think them to be savages, but because I think them to be fundamentally the same civilization represented with a different face.

People is people after all.


it does get disappointing doesn't it though? I mean to be a troll, to be a REALLY good one, you have to actually maintain some way out. You can't back your way into a corner. If you're going to troll, do it in a way where you can always maintain your position, don't try to go the "pennsylvania didn't have slaves!" route when it's easily demonstrated that it did. For 200 years.

Did MTAE ever have an out? I mean, I always thought he was the creme-de-la-Troll.

Inuit, please.

In Canada and Greenland. In Alaska, "Eskimo" is still widely used in reference to both Yupik and Inupiat peoples, and "Inuit" is not used. Or so I understand.

Whatever the case, a good rule of thumb is to call a person whatever he or she calls his or her self.

Also, there is the economic perspective. It is no doubt true that colonialism strengthened the economy of North America and the rest of the world. The corporation is just one such example of economic improvements that came about through colonialism.


It is true that colonialism improved the economy for Europeans and their descendant societies (Canada and United States). However, the economic results of colonialism for aboriginal peoples was, and continues to be, high levels of poverty, unemployment, domestic violence, low levels of education, poor health, and extremely high costs of living.

The Inuit in what is now Canada are a specific example that I am always citing because it is the one with which I'm most familiar: http://www.itk.ca/publications/StatisticalProfile_Inuit2007.pdf

The economic advantages of colonialism have been so great that 20% of Inuit households are overcrowded (compared to 2% of Canadian non-aboriginal households), on average Inuit live 15 fewer years than Canadian non-aboriginals, TB infection rates are 14 times higher for Inuit than the rate for all Canadians, the Inuit suicide rate is 11 times higher, the Inuit infant mortality rate is 4 times higher, 24.7 percent of Inuit males are unemployed compared to 7.6% for non-Inuit males, 19.4% of Inuit females are unemployed compared to 7.2% of non-Inuit females.

Insufficient housing and overcrowding, low life expectancy, high rate of infectious disease, high suicide rates, high infant mortality, and massive unemployment are all the "benefits" that colonial economics brought in this particular case.

All of these and other social ills are the result of the destruction of traditional lifestyles, the destruction of traditional economic means, and the destruction of traditional political structure combined with racist exclusion from the "strenghtened" Anglo-American economy and society.

The simple fact is that the purpose of colonialism is to take land and to either throw away or enslave the people already living on it. Period. End of story.

W00t! Still the bestester thread!

We brought gunpowder, didn't we? Or should I say funpowder?



Fireworks FTW!

I wonder what America would be like today if it was just left for folk from East England and Lincolnshire to settle

No. Neeskia got her feathers ruffled when I pointed out that they did nasty things. She wanted proof of that. It was like asking me to give a source for the sky being blue.
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a205/ulteriormotives/sky2.jpg

Undeniable proof that the sky isn't blue. What's your point?
The Quakers were pretty ahead of their time. Pennsylvania never forbade blacks from voting. I do not think that slavery was ever legal in Pennsylvania except in that wierd Dred Scott kind of way.Comparing the Quakers to one tribe fails to meet the criteria for a reliable comparison.
Exploited children???? Who exploited children? Anyway, women's rights were pretty limited all over the world unless you look at it from their prosepctive which was the protection of the right of women to be separated from much of the goings on of public society so that they can focus on the family needs.That's not really looking at it from their perspective at all...
Lies!Has a point here actually, though probably doesn't know it. Americans never burned witches, they hung them.
Lies! Even if this is true we can see how history repeats itself. All of some parts of present day Philadelphia are little more than tulmultuous gatherings of free negroes.Now you've stooped to the level of trolling.
Considering that my existence hinges (presumably) on events happening exactly as they did... I would opt that they indeed happened as they did.Plausible.
Additionally, yes Europeans did terrible things... but it's not like they invaded a peace-loving hippie land, but rather a brutal, and belligerant society, in short, it's not like Europeans were the only ones doing the killing.No, but part of the reasoning behind colonizations was that the "savages" needed to be "civilized", when the Europeans were everything but civilized.
Note: "European" as used above actually refers mostly to Spanish and Portugese peoples, The British and French were much more 'nice' to the natives, and the Germans weren't yet the Germans as a whole.The British, in turn, had the cruellest and most inhumane laws on slavery, when compared to the other colonial powers (though whether all of these laws were applied by the other powers is another question).

The Amish are Swiss-Germans not English. So how is it a raid against English civilians? To this day the Amish refuse to speak English and maintain their German as their main language amongst themselves, using English only when dealing with "outsiders."Not exclusively Swiss-Germans.


Anyway, I make my point again:
What human rights? When were they actually exported?

Complete the following sentence:
"Support for my wild claims can be found at ________________"

Not exclusively Swiss-Germans.

Yes they were exclusively Swiss-Germans. To quote wikipedia:


The Amish are united by a common Swiss-German ancestry, language, and culture, and they marry within the Amish community. The Amish therefore meet the criteria of an ethnic group.



So in short they are purely German in culture and ethnicity, enough that they can be considered an ethnic group. Due to their refusal to intermingle or interbreed with the dominant "Anglo-Saxon" culture around them.


As I said, even to this day they speak in a German dialect, pray in German and sing their hymns in German rejecting to accept English as their language of conduct. So how are they in any way English civilians?

Yes they were exclusively Swiss-Germans. To quote wikipedia:Might be a conflict of definition of "Swiss-German". To me, that means Swiss of German ethnicity, which the the Amish, being descended from a number of different "Täufer" (baptist) communities from Germany and Switzerland, would not be.

Might be a conflict of definition of "Swiss-German". To me, that means Swiss of German ethnicity, which the the Amish, being descended from a number of different "Täufer" (baptist) communities from Germany and Switzerland, would not be.

Well then I phrased it wrong. I was under the assumption that the "-" would mean and. Because I was working with the premise that Swiss = Swiss and German = German. Hence Swiss-German, are Swiss and Germans.

But if that was too confusing then I'll simply rephrase it to descended from Swiss-and-Germans.