Nelson Mandela

[Jake]

WTF? What civilization on Earth are we talking about that "has no understanding of war"?

 

They certainly needed some time to understand what kind of war it was they were fighting. Tribal conflict was just that -- tribal. They didn't realize that this other enemy (or, for a while in some circumstances an ally) from across the ocean would look at every human being on this continent as an enemy. They're thinking that Tribe X, Y, Z are all sovereign entities and not unlike the Europeans. Europeans just saw "Indians." I think if Native Americans had some way of perceiving that the goal of Europeans was total conquest of lands more numerous than they could have fathomed, things might have been different.

 

So while Native American groups knew all about fighting "wars," there was nothing so imperial before. I don't believe they could have guessed what kind of goal was being pursued by Europeans nor could they have collectively realized that they needed each other, all of each other, to oppose this group.

 

[Balta1701]

They certainly needed some time to understand what kind of war it was they were fighting. Tribal conflict was just that -- tribal. They didn't realize that this other enemy (or, for a while in some circumstances an ally) from across the ocean would look at every human being on this continent as an enemy. They're thinking that Tribe X, Y, Z are all sovereign entities and not unlike the Europeans. Europeans just saw "Indians." I think if Native Americans had some way of perceiving that the goal of Europeans was total conquest of lands more numerous than they could have fathomed, things might have been different.

 

So while Native American groups knew all about fighting "wars," there was nothing so imperial before. I don't believe they could have guessed what kind of goal was being pursued by Europeans nor could they have collectively realized that they needed each other, all of each other, to oppose this group.

That's an incredibly far cry from innocent farmers who "Have no understanding of war".

[Texsox]

How are you defining war?

[DukeNukeEm]

Oh, the poor innocent Native Americans. Before Columbus showed up they just wanted to live in perfect harmony with nature and sing Beatles songs in a drum circle.

 

Yea, right.

 

The Aztecs were f***ing brutal. Not just their weird human sacrifice rituals that get talked about a lot, but theyd just attack anyone near them and enslave them. They did manage to build what by all accounts was a magnificent city and a pretty interesting culture on the back of murder and slavery but to hold them on a moral high ground to the Europeans is ridiculous. If you think the Dutch, British and Belgians were mean colonizers look at the Aztecs, everyone since save the industrialized killing machines of the 20th century is small time.

 

The Iroquois werent much better. They werent as much into the slavery and sacrifice side of things but even pre-Columbus theyd invade other tribes. They were no less expansionist than the Europeans who eventually beat them.

 

Hell, the Illini got chased up a hill and starved to death like 100 miles south of US Cellular Field by two other tribes. Thats not even starting with Fort Dearborn, Roanoke, Jamestown...

 

Point is, these dudes eventually got beaten at their own game. They werent doe-eyed innocents that got wiped out by an evil maraudimg white race. They knew what was going on because before we showed up they were doing it to each other.

 

 

[Balta1701]

How are you defining war?

 

 

Oh, the poor innocent Native Americans. Before Columbus showed up they just wanted to live in perfect harmony with nature and sing Beatles songs in a drum circle.

 

Yea, right.

 

The Aztecs were f***ing brutal. Not just their weird human sacrifice rituals that get talked about a lot, but theyd just attack anyone near them and enslave them. They did manage to build what by all accounts was a magnificent city and a pretty interesting culture on the back of murder and slavery but to hold them on a moral high ground to the Europeans is ridiculous. If you think the Dutch, British and Belgians were mean colonizers look at the Aztecs, everyone since save the industrialized killing machines of the 20th century is small time.

 

The Iroquois werent much better. They werent as much into the slavery and sacrifice side of things but even pre-Columbus theyd invade other tribes. They were no less expansionist than the Europeans who eventually beat them.

 

Hell, the Illini got chased up a hill and starved to death like 100 miles south of US Cellular Field by two other tribes. Thats not even starting with Fort Dearborn, Roanoke, Jamestown...

 

Point is, these dudes eventually got beaten at their own game. They werent doe-eyed innocents that got wiped out by an evil maraudimg white race. They knew what was going on because before we showed up they were doing it to each other.

It's finally happened. I've been pushed to the point where I have zero choice but to agree with Duke on a post.

[TaylorStSox]

It's finally happened. I've been pushed to the point where I have zero choice but to agree with Duke on a post.

You rationalize genocide by saying the victims were also kind of bad people? Marvelous.

 

Mandela fought for equality. Europeans fought for exploitation. Their motives were slightly different.

Edited December 7, 2013 by TaylorStSox

[DukeNukeEm]

You rationalize genocide by saying the victims were also kind of bad people? Marvelous.

 

Mandela fought for equality. Europeans fought for exploitation. Their motives were slightly different.

It was a war. The natives knew what war was. It took them a minute but they even grasped the consequences of losing that particular war.

 

Then they lost. Losing sucks, but for there to be a winner...

 

Its been called a genocide but I disagree with that. It wasnt a systemic, targeted elimination. The point wasnt to kill Natives but to get their land.

[Reddy]

You rationalize genocide by saying the victims were also kind of bad people? Marvelous.

 

Mandela fought for equality. Europeans fought for exploitation. Their motives were slightly different.

agreed.

 

wtf balta?

 

I mean yes, I think Tex went a bit too far, but we f***ing invaded them and killed them all! How ... I just dont understand how you can put ANY fault on the Native Americans! Haha it's a JOKE to do so.

[Balta1701]

You rationalize genocide by saying the victims were also kind of bad people? Marvelous.

 

Mandela fought for equality. Europeans fought for exploitation. Their motives were slightly different.

I wasn't rationalizing anything. I was saying Tex's post describing, heck anyone as "when you don't realize you are fighting a war or have no understanding in your life of "war"" really doesn't describe...anyone.

 

 

[Reddy]

It was a war. The natives knew what war was. It took them a minute but they even grasped the consequences of losing that particular war.

 

Then they lost. Losing sucks, but for there to be a winner...

 

Its been called a genocide but I disagree with that. It wasnt a systemic, targeted elimination. The point wasnt to kill Natives but to get their land.

 

And how, pray tell, did they GET that land? What was the gameplan to acquire said land?

[Reddy]

Duke: "The white man CANNOT be wrong!"

[TaylorStSox]

It was a war. The natives knew what war was. It took them a minute but they even grasped the consequences of losing that particular war.

 

Then they lost. Losing sucks, but for there to be a winner...

 

Its been called a genocide but I disagree with that. It wasnt a systemic, targeted elimination. The point wasnt to kill Natives but to get their land.

Do you get drunk and hit your step kids?

[Texsox]

I was thinking of pre-colonization and areas of the world where there were many nomadic tribes who were living in peace. The so called noble savage. But since we probably do not wish to debate the essential nature of man I will stick to north America.

 

In North America I'll agree with Duke and Balta on the physical war between the Native Americans and the settlers. Most of the tribes, especially those west of teh Appalachian Mountains were skilled fighters. I will make the point that the war that the white man won, as much as the fighting, was in the courts and two very different understandings of land ownership. How treaties were ripped up once they were no longer advantageous to white settlers. The native Americans had a terrible understanding of these sorts of legal proceedings and how important the agreements would become. That is the war they had no understanding of. The same class war we fight today.

[TaylorStSox]

If aliens landed on earth today and overpowered us with superior technology and an invasion of disease, I wouldn't call it a "war."

[DukeNukeEm]

And how, pray tell, did they GET that land? What was the gameplan to acquire said land?

Well the M.O. of the time was war. The natives did it to each other for stuff, the settlers back on their home continent were doing it for stuff. It was just the way things worked.

 

Also, they arent all dead. Theyre still there, we eventually gave them chunks of land and stuck to the promise of letting them keep it. Is there a German reservation on the Alsace-Lorraine? Do we lament the loss of the Roman Empire? I mean, Northern Ireland still exists!!

 

I dont condemn those European examples of brute force conquest and more than I do what happened in the New World. Its just the way things happened. Channel your inner Vonnegut and accept it without trying to do so much in the present to attempt righting an irreversible wrong of the past. Its a waste, there are bad things happening in places like South Africa that you can do something about now.

[DukeNukeEm]

I dont know, Im trying to make a broader point here but I dont know how to convey it. I just know that ridiculing my insensitivity is exactly the kind of frustrating adherence to a perpetual guilt cycle that cuts the legs out from any substantial discussion.

[Milkman delivers]

WTF? What civilization on Earth are we talking about that "has no understanding of war"?

 

I was thinking the same exact thing.

[Milkman delivers]

It just shows a complete and utter ignorance of history. Something like 50% of Native Americans were wiped out right before the Europeans got here by their version of the plague. Had that plague not happened, we wouldn't be here right now.

 

It has nothing to do with them not "fighting hard enough". Sweet jesus.

 

I can't imagine even doubling their numbers would've changed anything. If the Europeans wanted it, they were getting it.

[Milkman delivers]

I agree he didn't write anything close to that. In fact that is my point. That if it was phrased better, and by someone who has not posted ugly racist posts prior, it would not have been so soundly denounced.

 

And I wasn't trying to make any excuses either. What I was trying to point out is the kernel of truth in Duke's ugly racist posts. Mandela was not a saint from birth. I believe Mandela became one. It highlights the remarkable ability and potential for all of us to change.

 

"I guess what I'm trying to say is, if I can change, and you can change, everybody can change."

[Texsox]

"I guess what I'm trying to say is, if I can change, and you can change, everybody can change."

Except Duke, I don't see that cat changing, ever.

[StrangeSox]

I agree he didn't write anything close to that. In fact that is my point. That if it was phrased better, and by someone who has not posted ugly racist posts prior, it would not have been so soundly denounced.

 

And I wasn't trying to make any excuses either. What I was trying to point out is the kernel of truth in Duke's ugly racist posts. Mandela was not a saint from birth. I believe Mandela became one. It highlights the remarkable ability and potential for all of us to change.

His racism wouldn't be any less disgusting if it were "phrased better." His ideas aren't the ones you've portrayed in that post. They're just dumb, ignorant racism from a child.

[Texsox]

His racism wouldn't be any less disgusting if it were "phrased better." His ideas aren't the ones you've portrayed in that post. They're just dumb, ignorant racism from a child.

 

No his racism would not be. I guess I didn't make my point clear.

 

Because he did write in such a racist way we rejected everything that he wrote. If someone who was not a racist had written that Mandela was not always a saint, had done some things that would later be inconsistent with Mandela's own views, it would not have been rejected.

 

or

 

If someone different had mentioned some of the bad stuff Mandela did, we could have discussed it and placed those acts in the context of the man's life. Instead it became a discussion about what a racist ignoramus Duke is.

 

or

 

I guess what I am saying is that I believe it is possible to discuss Mandela's career, both the good and the bad, in a non racist manner. Duke failed at that, someone else could have succeeded.

 

Unless someone wishes to make a case that any discussion of bad things Mandela may have done is by that very action racist.

[StrangeSox]

I was thinking of pre-colonization and areas of the world where there were many nomadic tribes who were living in peace. The so called noble savage. But since we probably do not wish to debate the essential nature of man I will stick to north America.

 

In North America I'll agree with Duke and Balta on the physical war between the Native Americans and the settlers. Most of the tribes, especially those west of teh Appalachian Mountains were skilled fighters. I will make the point that the war that the white man won, as much as the fighting, was in the courts and two very different understandings of land ownership. How treaties were ripped up once they were no longer advantageous to white settlers. The native Americans had a terrible understanding of these sorts of legal proceedings and how important the agreements would become. That is the war they had no understanding of. The same class war we fight today.

The noble savage is an ignorant stereotype

[StrangeSox]

Well the M.O. of the time was war. The natives did it to each other for stuff, the settlers back on their home continent were doing it for stuff. It was just the way things worked.

 

Also, they arent all dead. Theyre still there, we eventually gave them chunks of land and stuck to the promise of letting them keep it. Is there a German reservation on the Alsace-Lorraine? Do we lament the loss of the Roman Empire? I mean, Northern Ireland still exists!!

 

I dont condemn those European examples of brute force conquest and more than I do what happened in the New World. Its just the way things happened. Channel your inner Vonnegut and accept it without trying to do so much in the present to attempt righting an irreversible wrong of the past. Its a waste, there are bad things happening in places like South Africa that you can do something about now.

We "gave" them land after forcibly removing them to that land, oh and then have continued to take more lands, and the ratio of promises the US has kept versus broken is gotta be greater than one in one hundred.

 

Books.Go read them.

[Texsox]

The noble savage is an ignorant stereotype

 

How so?