Nelson Mandela

[DukeNukeEm]

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.

Yup. We took it all then gave some back. Its their fault for losing the war. Want the land? Win the war.

[Texsox]

Yup. We took it all then gave some back. Its their fault for losing the war. Want the land? Win the war.

 

So I understand, there is nothing wrong in fighting a war to take someone's land. You want it, you have the military strength, so go take it.

[DukeNukeEm]

December 7th.

[chw42]

So I understand, there is nothing wrong in fighting a war to take someone's land. You want it, you have the military strength, so go take it.

 

Manifest destiny b****es!

 

But seriously, Duke probably thinks colonization and enslaving Africans was also ok since the Europeans "won the war" and "wanted the land more".

[StrangeSox]

Yup. We took it all then gave some back. Its their fault for losing the war. Want the land? Win the war.

 

Interesting how the libertarians' view of property rights always breaks down at the most convenient points for them.

[StrangeSox]

How so?

 

It's a patronizing stereotype that washes over the vast diversity of peoples and cultures and their struggles and triumphs and flaws. AmerIndians fought and traded and worked together, damaged the environment and preserved it in others just like various groups of Europeans have. The Noble Savage is just a romanticized and sanitized version of dozens of cultures mashed together. It, like the native warrior, may be 'positive' stereotypes, but they're still stereotypes that strip away the actual humanity.

[Texsox]

Really? I've always seen it in the debate of whether humans are inherently good or evil. I've never seen the term used in any other way. I learned something today. Thanks.

[StrangeSox]

Really? I've always seen it in the debate of whether humans are inherently good or evil.

Sure, that's one way it's deployed. But then, look at how it's being used: tens of millions of people from vastly different cultures getting all lumped together as one for a philosophical argument. Pretty dehumanizing. AmerIndians were no more or less noble or savage than any other wide group of human cultures.

[Texsox]

Sure, that's one way it's deployed. But then, look at how it's being used: tens of millions of people from vastly different cultures getting all lumped together as one for a philosophical argument. Pretty dehumanizing. AmerIndians were no more or less noble or savage than any other wide group of human cultures.

 

Yet in the context that a group in isolation from other humans are inherently good, not evil is positive. I did not believe I was calling Native Americans noble savages, if I left that impression, I am sorry. I was trying to argue that it is possible for humans to not be blood thirsty racists out to take each other's stuff. That it is not an inherent trait.

[StrangeSox]

Yet in the context that a group in isolation from other humans are inherently good, not evil is positive. I did not believe I was calling Native Americans noble savages, if I left that impression, I am sorry. I was trying to argue that it is possible for humans to not be blood thirsty racists out to take each other's stuff. That it is not an inherent trait.

 

AmerIndians were no more or less inherently good or evil, though. Some were bloodthirsty, petty tyrants. Some weren't. They're human, just like Europeans or Africans or aborigines or Mongolians or Indians etc. etc. etc. Lumping all of this different groups together under one and then pointing to them as "inherently good" is exactly the dehumanizing thing. Even ostensibly positive stereotypes are damaging when they cause others to overlook the real, actual humanity in people and groups.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

Pretty good read on Mandela and getting him right:

 

http://blogs.swarthmore.edu/burke/blog/201...nelson-mandela/

[caulfield12]

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.

 

 

Look at where the majority of Indian reservations are today.

 

They're some of the most desolate territory in the entire United States.

 

For example, the Oglala Sioux reservation in Boone County, SD, near Mount Rushmore. Also famous for Wounded Knee and the Badlands.

 

It's the poorest, or was until very recently, county in the United States. Highest rate of unemployment. Highest rate of alcoholism and suicide, etc.

 

If you drive through there sometime...and just observe what is actually going on in this country, there's just no way you would be blaming those people (and I know you'll try to throw out something like "the Native Americans are pretty much all rich and subsidized by the government with their casinos and gaming rights.")

[Texsox]

AmerIndians were no more or less inherently good or evil, though. Some were bloodthirsty, petty tyrants. Some weren't. They're human, just like Europeans or Africans or aborigines or Mongolians or Indians etc. etc. etc. Lumping all of this different groups together under one and then pointing to them as "inherently good" is exactly the dehumanizing thing. Even ostensibly positive stereotypes are damaging when they cause others to overlook the real, actual humanity in people and groups.

 

Again, if it seemed I was using noble savage to describe the Native Americans that was not my intent. I never intended to group anyone together.

[Texsox]

December 7th.

 

As Duke has taught us. Nothing wrong with the Japanese bombing Pearl Harbor. They wanted the land and tried to take it. The only difference between European settlers and the Japanese is the European settlers won.

[caulfield12]

As Duke has taught us. Nothing wrong with the Japanese bombing Pearl Harbor. They wanted the land and tried to take it. The only difference between European settlers and the Japanese is the European settlers won.

 

 

That and the fact that the Japanese felt threatened by the US trying to cut off their supply routes in the Pacific...especially for oil/gasoline.

 

We can have another argument about FDR knowing in advance the Japanese were going to attack and needing a catalyzing event to precipitate support for a full out war in Asia...and the argument is always made that there were no carriers at Pearl Harbor that Sunday morning, so, while damage severely, the fleet was far from crippled under Nimitz.

Edited December 8, 2013 by caulfield12

[Reddy]

As Duke has taught us. Nothing wrong with the Japanese bombing Pearl Harbor. They wanted the land and tried to take it. The only difference between European settlers and the Japanese is the white people won.

 

fixed

[StrangeSox]

Again, if it seemed I was using noble savage to describe the Native Americans that was not my intent. I never intended to group anyone together.

I'm sorry if any of my responses were overly aggressive. they weren't intended to be, I was just firing off quick replies on my phone

[Jake]

Capitalistic impulses made the European goal quite a bit different from Native American goals in war-making. Europeans, even before Manifest Destiny, were interested in wealth accumulation in a way that almost no Native American societies were. It would have been quite hard to learn the lesson that Europeans would take more land and goods than what was necessary for sustenance and some symbolic uses (I say this since Native Americans had "nice things" as you might say, they just paled in comparison to the type of hoarding that we like to do)

[Texsox]

fixed

 

Thank you.

[DukeNukeEm]

That and the fact that the Japanese felt threatened by the US trying to cut off their supply routes in the Pacific...especially for oil/gasoline.

 

We can have another argument about FDR knowing in advance the Japanese were going to attack and needing a catalyzing event to precipitate support for a full out war in Asia...and the argument is always made that there were no carriers at Pearl Harbor that Sunday morning, so, while damage severely, the fleet was far from crippled under Nimitz.

The also wanted the Philippines. Pretty badly, too. They didn't waste much time taking them.

 

But they lost. And we kept the Philippines eventually just giving them sovereignty. Evil white people I tell you what, sending thousands of their children off to die to liberate colonies then grant them a bloodless independence.

[DukeNukeEm]

Capitalistic impulses made the European goal quite a bit different from Native American goals in war-making. Europeans, even before Manifest Destiny, were interested in wealth accumulation in a way that almost no Native American societies were. It would have been quite hard to learn the lesson that Europeans would take more land and goods than what was necessary for sustenance and some symbolic uses (I say this since Native Americans had "nice things" as you might say, they just paled in comparison to the type of hoarding that we like to do)

1. I dont think "Capitalistic" is a word, capitalist works just fine. Same goes for socialistic. Aside from littering I think this is my #1 pet peeve.

 

2. If the Natives had the technology to ship themselves across the ocean and take Europe they would have. The Aztecs would've been all over that s***.

[Reddy]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/...tics/?hpt=hp_t3

 

GOP like Duke have been flaming Newt and Ted Cruz for their positive tributes to Mandela. Well Newt has responded to said critics:

 

"Some of the people who are most opposed to oppression from Washington attack Mandela when he was opposed to oppression in his own country. After years of preaching non-violence, using the political system, making his case as a defendant in court, Mandela resorted to violence against a government that was ruthless and violent in its suppression of free speech," he wrote.

 

He went on to compare Mandela to the Founding Fathers and the farmers who took up arms at Lexington and Concord in the Revolutionary War. He praised the former South African president for his calls for reconciliation, his Christian faith and his turn from Communism to opening South Africa up to free enterprise.

 

Well said, Newt. (first time I've ever said that)

Edited December 8, 2013 by Reddy

[Texsox]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/...tics/?hpt=hp_t3

 

GOP like Duke have been flaming Newt and Ted Cruz for their positive tributes to Mandela. Well Newt has responded to said critics:

 

 

 

Well said, Newt. (first time I've ever said that)

 

The past few years Newt has made a number of statements that I've applauded. I think when politicians are freed up from party matters they can be more like the rest of us. Much more down the middle on most issues.

 

[bmags]

That is pretty funny. Dudes talk about armed insurrection for an attempt at universal health care, but call Mandela a terrorist for fighting against his government which kept him as a second-class citizen. A REAL second-class citizen, not the made-up "I can't take my gun into the nursery what country is this" second-class citizen.

[StrangeSox]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/...tics/?hpt=hp_t3

 

GOP like Duke have been flaming Newt and Ted Cruz for their positive tributes to Mandela. Well Newt has responded to said critics:

 

 

 

Well said, Newt. (first time I've ever said that)

 

This isn't just opportunism for Newt, either. He supported Mandela and the sanctions against SA back in the 1980's as well. It's a good reminder that virtually no one is universally good or universally bad.