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

[85SugarVol]

What did I miss? Did @bignewt really get all up in his feelings causing him to change his avi?

I guess lol. They were in there discussing American Nazism and he had some sort of epiphany.

I’m afraid the strain was more than he could bear.

 

[Orangeburst]

I can't tell what thread I am in or even the forum

 

[Orangeburst]

I guess lol. They were in there discussing American Nazism and he had some sort of epiphany.

I’m afraid the strain was more than he could bear.

is it bear, bare, or beer?

 

[Christian Lowe]

Could you have taught in a private school?

Absolutely, but they usually want teachers with experience. Fresh out of college teachers have to go the public school route

 

[Christian Lowe]

Well said. There is a reason native Americans were driven against their will to Oklahoma as it is a god forsaken place.

Every decent human in their heart of hearts has always known "redskins" was derogatory and ugly. Unfortunately Natives have such a small voice for change.

Reservation Dogs is an amazing show by the way everyone should watch it. It's just good.

Seems like those with “small voices” have the loudest voices for change. I live in Cherokee land like many of us. I grew up with Sitting “Indian style,“ or being an “Indian giver.” No one cried.

I grew up with everyone calling their friends “f*gs.” My best friend from middle school all the way to today is actually gay. He didn’t cry, nor did anyone else.

Why? Because even children can understand that these “offensive” words have absolutely no intention to offend in the modern contexts they’re used. The Cleveland Indians and Washington Redskins in the modern day didn’t want to offend anyone. Hell, they probably didn’t even when they were formed. I’m pretty sure the Indians got their name because their first manager was Native American. For as long as I’ve been alive, f*g was just another word for ahole. It was almost never used to reference anything to do with homosexuality.

Everything to do with overblown offense over words is manufactured just like the America sucks movement. 10 years ago, no one gave a ****.

 

[EasternVol]

You say this as the man in your picture took more land from native Americans than anyone.

What did TR do to take their land? I know he thought they were beneath contempt but wasn't he in office after the land had already been taken?

 

[Christian Lowe]

What did TR do to take their land? I know he thought they were beneath contempt but wasn't he in office after the land had already been taken?

I think he’s confusing his service in the Spanish American War to be a Mexican land thing rather than a Cuban war. Idk

 

[EasternVol]

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.

That was a part of the Nazis' goals that relate to this discussion. There was also 'conquer Europe and colonize Slavic lands with Western Europeans'. And eliminate other minorities.

 

[EasternVol]

All lands are conquered lands. Even the lands in Ethiopia. All.

PNG too?

 

[UTProf]

That was a part of the Nazis' goals that relate to this discussion. There was also 'conquer Europe and colonize Slavic lands with Western Europeans'. And eliminate other minorities.

True. I was mainly addressing that the NAZIs absolutely aimed to destroy a specific people whereas the US didn't really aim to do that when it came to expansion. It was still destructive and resulted in mass death but unlike the NAZIs, who set out to kill Jews (among others), the US was far more ambivalent about things. They wanted the land for various reasons (depending upon which event you're looking at) but didn't go out with the intention of wiping a people from the face of the Earth. IOW, they didn't seek to exterminate all Indians in the same way the NAZIs set out to exterminate Jews.

 

[Christian Lowe]

I’m pretty sure the Indians got their name because their first manager was Native American.

I guess I was right, which makes the “guardians” even more hilarious. Their name was given to them, whether by racism or endearment, due to a Native American player they had. And they got rid of it, which I think would offend him more than anything if he were alive to see it.

Amazing. Truly.

 

[Volsdeep4]

I think he’s confusing his service in the Spanish American War to be a Mexican land thing rather than a Cuban war. Idk

Nope he took 85 million acres of Indian land and that’s what we have as national forest now. They lived and hunted them lands. He moved them from that land

 

[hog88]

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.

If they weren’t born there they aren’t native.

 

[85SugarVol]

PNG too?

Papua New Guinea? Idk probably.

Erectus conquered the globe. Every year we find him in a new place we never believed him to be.

 

[EasternVol]

True. I was mainly addressing that the NAZIs absolutely aimed to destroy a specific people whereas the US didn't really aim to do that when it came to expansion. It was still destructive and resulted in mass death but unlike the NAZIs, who set out to kill Jews (among others), the US was far more ambivalent about things. They wanted the land for various reasons (depending upon which event you're looking at) but didn't go out with the intention of wiping a people from the face of the Earth. IOW, they didn't seek to exterminate all Indians in the same way the NAZIs set out to exterminate Jews.

I'm not too sure about that once we got to the plains, what with wiping out the bison to deprive the tribes there of their way of life, forbidding their religion, putting their kids in mission schools, and the occasional massacre, it looks like our aim was destruction.

 

[Christian Lowe]

I'm not too sure about that once we got to the plains, what with wiping out the bison to deprive the tribes there of their way of life, forbidding their religion, putting their kids in mission schools, and the occasional massacre, it looks like our aim was destruction.

Oh and the Comanche were such angels

 

[EasternVol]

Oh and the Comanche were such angels

They were an extreme case for sure. They also were a small minority.

 

[85SugarVol]

I'm not too sure about that once we got to the plains, what with wiping out the bison to deprive the tribes there of their way of life, forbidding their religion, putting their kids in mission schools, and the occasional massacre, it looks like our aim was destruction.

It was akin to ethnic cleansing, which is horrible. The Nazi talk, as usual, is silly though.

 

[LouderVol]

They were an extreme case for sure. They also were a small minority.

was it a large majority of white people killing off the natives?

 

[EasternVol]

was it a large majority of white people killing off the natives?

It was government policy.

 

[Ulysees E. McGill]

Do you not realize the difference between warring tribes and manifest destiny?

Do you not know there is no difference....you think the Sioux didn't have their own perception of "manifest destiny" when they drove the Cheyenne from the Black Hills?...or the Comanche when they obliterated other tribes?

We didn't invent "Manifest Destiny"...just the first ones to put that particular nomenclature on the ideal.

The Greeks did it, the Roman's did it, the Vikings did it, the Muslims did it, the Mongols REALLY did it...on and on and on and on.

 

[Ulysees E. McGill]

Were the Aztecs not conquering most of Mexico not their own Manifest Destiny?

Exactly my point....and I am glad that it's not ok anymore for anybody to conquer your enemies and then torture them to death and eat them.

 

[Ulysees E. McGill]

Bruh...just shut up.

Africans enslaved one another. That means it was ok as well. Ethical math 101.

This is stupid leftist and you know it....nobody is saying it's ok...and you know it. Go sit in the corner, suck your thumb and cry about the vicious evil your ancestors did to some poor wretches somewhere along the historical road if that makes you feel morally superior to me.


Just know that at some point somebody did it to yours...and cry about that too.

 

[LouderVol]

It was government policy.

and it wasn't a "government" policy amongst the natives?

Many tribe's stance towards settlers only changed AFTER they had "lost". in the early days there were plenty of tribes actively working to remove the settlers.

The only reason we were/are worst is because we won that struggle and got to implement our plan. You give them the same chance and it would probably look pretty similar. they were able to drive off the Vikings through blood shed. the later colonists felt the same violence, they just had the upper hand that time.

 

[EasternVol]

and it wasn't a "government" policy amongst the natives?

Many tribe's stance towards settlers only changed AFTER they had "lost". in the early days there were plenty of tribes actively working to remove the settlers.

The only reason we were/are worst is because we won that struggle and got to implement our plan. You give them the same chance and it would probably look pretty similar. they were able to drive off the Vikings through blood shed. the later colonists felt the same violence, they just had the upper hand that time.

Uh huh. People tend to resist aggression. That's good.