Wars, genocide, reparations, etc (split from recruiting forum)

#401
#401
UTProf said:
Unfortunately, I don't think he was prescient at all but by that I mean I don't think he saw our decline. I think he saw the way things were and had been since we came into existence and the way they continue to be. It's been that way since time immemorial. There was never a golden era we fell from and the only golden time we'll get is one we make for ourselves if we ever decide to get off our rears and change things but the past few centuries say that's highly unlikely to ever happen.
Click to expand...
*Greatest predictor of future is the past.
*Expect the best, prepare for the worst.
*Dont be an asshat.

His views are in line with I would call Liberarian.
 
#403
#403
bignewt said:
Dude? Or El Duderino if you're not into the whole brevity thing.

As for ole Teddy...I can respect and honor his feats and ideals while also saying Redskins is an ignorant moniker. As has been mentioned our modern lens allows a clarity they did not have in the 19th century.
Click to expand...
I seldom agree with you...but..yeah.
 
#404
#404
Devo182 said:
I mean, I get your general point, but did the Native Americans conquer the Americas (conquer = conquering other humans to get it)?

Or Africans in Africa? Or the Chinese or Indians? Maybe there was some degree, but surely there are natives to every land, as well. Natives didn't conquer. But many were conquered.

We do have to accept it as historical fact in vast parts of the world. Doesn't mean it was ever ethical. The whole manifest destiny crap was nothing short of nazi murderism.
Click to expand...
Nazi?...you gotta be effin kidding.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SweetasSoda, InVOLuntary, Enki_Amenra and 5 others
#406
#406
Ulysees E. McGill said:
Like how ignorant people go on and on about the Black Hills being so "sacred" to the Sioux....the Sioux walloped and took the Black Hills from the Cheyenne that actually were from there in...wait for it....1776.

And no telling who the Cheyenne took them from or when. The Indian tribes were always trying to kill each other.

Almost nobody acknowledges these facts.
Click to expand...

Do you not realize the difference between warring tribes and manifest destiny?
 
  • Like
Reactions: volinokc and Devo182
#407
#407
Devo182 said:
I mean, I get your general point, but did the Native Americans conquer the Americas (conquer = conquering other humans to get it)?

Or Africans in Africa? Or the Chinese or Indians? Maybe there was some degree, but surely there are natives to every land, as well. Natives didn't conquer. But many were conquered.

We do have to accept it as historical fact in vast parts of the world. Doesn't mean it was ever ethical. The whole manifest destiny crap was nothing short of nazi murderism.
Click to expand...

Conquest is never pretty, especially for those being conquered but there's a reason that the NAZIs stand out in history. War brings death and destruction to everyone in its path but it's rarely the goal of those making war to systematically destroy everyone and every thing. Usually, the goal is resource driven. In the case of the NAZIs (at least in terms of the part you're referencing) the goal was to murder every Jew in Europe and beyond. Murder and death was their goal and they carried it out efficiently.

The goal for Westward Expansion/Manifest Destiny was never the destruction of a people or peoples and that is a key difference. Indian Removal was done for gold - Andrew Jackson/Van Buren bent towards the interests of the wealthy who wanted the land many Cherokee called home because gold deposits were found. Jackson had had enough problems with Calhoun and the Nullification Crisis and Georgia was claiming they had authority over Cherokee lands even though Indian Affairs were supposed to be something only the Federal Government had authority over. The people who died on the Trail of Tears died not because the intent was to murder them for being Cherokee but because a rich man wanted to get richer and they happened to be in the way (this is how it goes in America time and time again).

My family was on the Guion Miller Roll (the Cherokee that didn't go West before Removal and who also didn't go during Removal). About 1,000 Cherokee would form the Eastern Band post-removal and even during the run up to removal there were many who argued in favor of the Cherokee. Removal was not something that was universally supported in the least and many Americans of that time were absolutely outraged by it.

More broadly Westward Expansion/Manifest Destiny were carried out without the destruction being the goal. Yes, it was absolutely a result and it doesn't excuse a number of war crimes that happened in that era but it matters that decimating a people(s) wasn't the goal. Once again rich men, expansionists, and industrialists drove American policy. Tribes that got in the way and didn't take the first unfair deal offered got dealt with the same way Pinkerton's dealt with striking workers or rebellious ranchers who dared to stand up against corporate ranches who were trying to muscle them out (if you don't know that part of history - well those ranchers were suddenly dubbed outlaws and murdered). It's what happens every time a government becomes the muscle for the interests of the few and even when the government doesn't become the muscle but allows the few to hire their own muscle and looks the other way as 'problems' are dealt with.

As terrible as it was (and it was terrible) it isn't in the same category of intentional murder by a government that makes killing a specific group its purpose. They're different types of crimes.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Bms4880, SweetasSoda and Devo182
#408
#408
bignewt said:
Dude? Or El Duderino if you're not into the whole brevity thing.

As for ole Teddy...I can respect and honor his feats and ideals while also saying Redskins is an ignorant moniker. As has been mentioned our modern lens allows a clarity they did not have in the 19th century.
Click to expand...
I think that is a bit naive to think they “saw it through a different lens”. It was bad back then as it is now. You think they didn’t think it was bad to take land from a group of people that were there before them?
But it’s history as that has been the entirety of human civilization.
 
#409
#409
Ulysees E. McGill said:
There is absolutely nothing wrong with having Teddy as his avi...I hate this f'n stupid 🦬💩.

TR was a remarkable president that did a lot of really great things for my country and for working people. Judging his morality by today's standards is saf.

Edit: Not calling you stupid...I just really hate this crap.
Click to expand...
Haha I really don’t think you and I understand each other. Idc whose avi is what. I’m just speaking on the irony of his words as to who he has as his avi. I love what TR did for Americans and conservations. I think he’s a true American patriot. Just laughing about what I mentioned before hand.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ulysees E. McGill, Volunteer821 and StoVol
#410
#410
Volsdeep4 said:
I think that is a bit naive to think they “saw it through a different lens”. It was bad back then as it is now. You think they didn’t think it was bad to take land from a group of people that were there before them?
But it’s history as that has been the entirety of human civilization.
Click to expand...
In the name of God they sure did not think it was bad.
 
#411
#411
bignewt said:
In the name of God they sure did not think it was bad.
Click to expand...

I think that depends on how racist and/or classist they were. The more racist they were the more likely they didn't think it was wrong because they didn't consider the people being taken from as fully realized human beings. However, plenty of those men knew it was wrong and many simply didn't care - wasn't their problem. Or their interests conflicted with the interests of a 'a few dumb savages' or 'ignorant poor people' who didn't know how to best utilize said resource for the betterment of our great nation (or some similar such nonsense) depending on how they thought of things. But there are also accounts of men and women who were absolutely appalled by it all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol
#416
#416
I remember usernames better than Avis. When I see usernames I don’t recognize that have a million posts and have been around as long as I have, I always get really confused.

Glad I know that people have been changing them now lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: jave36
#417
#417
Devo182 said:
I mean, I get your general point, but did the Native Americans conquer the Americas (conquer = conquering other humans to get it)?

Or Africans in Africa? Or the Chinese or Indians? Maybe there was some degree, but surely there are natives to every land, as well. Natives didn't conquer. But many were conquered.

We do have to accept it as historical fact in vast parts of the world. Doesn't mean it was ever ethical. The whole manifest destiny crap was nothing short of nazi murderism.
Click to expand...
Yes, natives conquered raped and pillaged fellow native tribes for thousands of years before Europeans conquered the Americas. Widespread war pillaging and rape for limited resources is human history. Do you think natives just started smoking peace pipe and singing songs peacefully after they crossed the land bridge?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, SweetasSoda and TheRain
#418
#418
Ulysees E. McGill said:
It was a totally different world...ignorant people have a hard time understanding that.
Click to expand...
Don’t even bother. It’s not worth the headache anymore. The US does such an awful job of teaching history that most of its citizens can’t understand the nuances of the time. Or the simple fact that no one prior to 1990 had a problem acknowledging bad things in history while simultaneously admitting we still are the greatest country ever to exist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ulysees E. McGill, DarthVol1, SweetasSoda and 6 others
#419
#419
UTProf said:
Conquest is never pretty, especially for those being conquered but there's a reason that the NAZIs stand out in history. War brings death and destruction to everyone in its path but it's rarely the goal of those making war to systematically destroy everyone and every thing. Usually, the goal is resource driven. In the case of the NAZIs (at least in terms of the part you're referencing) the goal was to murder every Jew in Europe and beyond. Murder and death was their goal and they carried it out efficiently.

The goal for Westward Expansion/Manifest Destiny was never the destruction of a people or peoples and that is a key difference. Indian Removal was done for gold - Andrew Jackson/Van Buren bent towards the interests of the wealthy who wanted the land many Cherokee called home because gold deposits were found. Jackson had had enough problems with Calhoun and the Nullification Crisis and Georgia was claiming they had authority over Cherokee lands even though Indian Affairs were supposed to be something only the Federal Government had authority over. The people who died on the Trail of Tears died not because the intent was to murder them for being Cherokee but because a rich man wanted to get richer and they happened to be in the way (this is how it goes in America time and time again).

My family was on the Guion Miller Roll (the Cherokee that didn't go West before Removal and who also didn't go during Removal). About 1,000 Cherokee would form the Eastern Band post-removal and even during the run up to removal there were many who argued in favor of the Cherokee. Removal was not something that was universally supported in the least and many Americans of that time were absolutely outraged by it.

More broadly Westward Expansion/Manifest Destiny were carried out without the destruction being the goal. Yes, it was absolutely a result and it doesn't excuse a number of war crimes that happened in that era but it matters that decimating a people(s) wasn't the goal. Once again rich men, expansionists, and industrialists drove American policy. Tribes that got in the way and didn't take the first unfair deal offered got dealt with the same way Pinkerton's dealt with striking workers or rebellious ranchers who dared to stand up against corporate ranches who were trying to muscle them out (if you don't know that part of history - well those ranchers were suddenly dubbed outlaws and murdered). It's what happens every time a government becomes the muscle for the interests of the few and even when the government doesn't become the muscle but allows the few to hire their own muscle and looks the other way as 'problems' are dealt with.

As terrible as it was (and it was terrible) it isn't in the same category of intentional murder by a government that makes killing a specific group its purpose. They're different types of crimes.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. Maybe I'll land somewhere in between.

But their lives were undoubtedly minimized in this conquest, merely a small hurdle to overcome, without much concern of the human life and full of exceptionalism.

"The major ideas of manifest destiny can be traced to the original ideology of the 15th-century decree of the Doctrine of Christian Discovery. Historian Nick Estes links the 15th century the catholic churches Doctrine of distinguishing Christians from Non-Christians in the expansion of European nations.

John Marshall ruled on the case that "indigenous peoples possess 'occupancy' rights, meaning their lands could be taken by the powers of 'discovery'". Frichner explains that "The newly formed United States needed to manufacture an American Indian political identity and concept of Indian land that would open the way for united states and westward colonial expansion." In this way, Manifest Destiny was inspired by the original European colonization of the Americas, and it excuses U.S. violence against Indigenous Nations.

Historian William E. Weeks noted in 1996 that three key themes were usually touched upon by advocates of manifest destiny:

the virtue of the American people and their institutions;

the mission to spread these institutions, thereby redeeming and remaking the world in the image of the United States;

the destiny under God to do this work"
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: UTProf
#420
#420
Devo182 said:
Not when originally getting there. This seems obvious.

Why I left in, "there was to some degree" there. Ofc they fought in due time. Just talking...the lands were originally not conquered lands.

Wouldn't that have to be true of all land, minus the original lands in Ethiopia? All lands were originally not conquered.

I was responding to, "ALL" lands were conquered. No they were not.
Click to expand...
Thanksgiving Guilt Trip: How Warlike Were Native Americans Before Europeans Arrived?
they began conquering other native tribes lands between the first settlement of the Americas and European arrival yes absolutely. See also, Aztec, Mayan and Olmec domination and oppression and forced human sacrifice of neighboring tribes. (I also don’t judge them through a modern ethical point of view)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and Volunteer821
#422
#422
Ulysees E. McGill said:
Like how ignorant people go on and on about the Black Hills being so "sacred" to the Sioux....the Sioux walloped and took the Black Hills from the Cheyenne that actually were from there in...wait for it....1776.

And no telling who the Cheyenne took them from or when. The Indian tribes were always trying to kill each other.

Almost nobody acknowledges these facts.
Click to expand...
It’s only evil if they named it Manifest Destiny and happened to be able to conquer larger swaths of land due to having better technology duh.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, Ulysees E. McGill, SweetasSoda and 1 other person
#423
#423
Devo182 said:
Just look at how they worded the question. The juice is in the confusion of it all,

"Do you find the name offensive or doesn't it bother you?"

W-h-a-t?

So if you answer "yes" - what does that mean? That it does not bother you? Or that it is offensive?

One of the most terribly worded poll questions in history. Embarrassing really.
Click to expand...
Do you still beat your wife?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthVol1 and Devo182
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top