America's Conquest

[skrump]

I have to ask, not because I'm prying, but for argument's sake: What country do you call home? The entire European Enlightenment which informed the minds that created the US Declaration of Independence, The US Constitution, and the Bill of Rights all basically states that governments ARE answerable to their people. "Governments rule by the consent of the governed." Indiscriminately killing your citizens or even your peasants is not stewardship, it's tyranny and genocide. Those things have no place in any nation or society that views itself as modern, advanced, or democratic in any regard.

You are right but the indians refused to be governed therefor logically they had no say in the actions of the government, furthermore any reparations the indians might of been owed were forfeited as they we killed each other indiscriminately regardless of if that individual/group had anything to do with the suffering inflicted which caused the entire conflict to be based on racism and misplaced vengeance

[Wikiy]

You are right but the indians refused to be governed therefor logically they had no say in the actions of the government,

May have something to do with their lands being conquered and them being oppressed?

[skrump]

I'm just going to ignore the fact that you think there are societies that deserve to be exterminated and the fact that you consider genocide a good thing and deal with this particular part. A vast majority of countries that have gone to war officially declared their intent to do so. Japan didn't in WWII because a surprise attack was the whole point of the opening part of their war on the US; destroying American naval capabilities. Declaring war prior to doing that would have been suicide.

I don't think Genocide is a good thing and I don't think that any hostile society deserves to be completely exterminated, I think it is a necessary evil to do so however for one to protect their own society from others who wish harm upon it.

Of course when it comes to a societies expansion into someone elses using war as the tool to do so it is always the better option to try and convince the members of a society that merging with your own would be beneficial for all but sometimes that benefit is not mutual thus genocide becomes a more desirable option for the benefit of your own society.

[semaphore]

I'm just going to ignore the fact that you think there are societies that deserve to be exterminated and the fact that you consider genocide a good thing and deal with this particular part. A vast majority of countries that have gone to war officially declared their intent to do so. Japan didn't in WWII because a surprise attack was the whole point of the opening part of their war on the US; destroying American naval capabilities. Declaring war prior to doing that would have been suicide.

Japan actually tried to declare war just before Pearl Harbour, but they ran into the 1941 equivalent of server lagging. Damn US servers.

But no, it's rather silly to talk about the virtue of declaring war first when it comes to America... Technically speaking, the United States has not even issued a declaration of war since World War Two.

[starlord]

I don't think Genocide is a good thing and I don't think that any hostile society deserves to be completely exterminated, I think it is a necessary evil to do so however for one to protect their own society from others who wish harm upon it.

Of course it is always the better option to try and convince the members of a society that merging with your own would be beneficial for all but sometimes that benefit is not mutual thus genocide becomes a more desirable option for the benefit of your own society.

this just shows how little you know of the history of american expansion.

[skrump]

this just shows how little you know of the history of american expansion.

Declarations of war were kind of hard to declare on scattered tribes, especially when the messenger would return as a scalp-less corpse tied to a rope behind his horse if at all.

I am not trying to justify what either side did or why but like i said earlier trying to place 100% of the blame on the victor alone is misguided at best.

[mvaliz]

NOPE!

It's like everybody hates the U.S. for whatever reason.

We must like, be the kid in a hypothetical late 90's elementary school who got a Gameboy Color, or Lunchables.

NOPE!

The reason is they do like us, as people (well, at least the more liberal-side they do). What they don't like are the government practices (particularly from the conservative side).

I think it was said best by John Cleese in an interview. "When America elected George Bush, they simply ended up looking like the village idiot. When America REALLY put their foot in it is when they re-elected George Bush". Basically stating that, upon the first election of George W Bush, they thought of it more like a big "ooops!"... but when he got re-elected they were actually shocked and couldn't understand how that happened, thus started a HUGE negative-wave of attention from the rest of the world looking at America going "WTF are you doing!?".

This, by the way, is the real reason Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize that so many people here in America do not understand. Basically by promoting noble ideas and promises to change back to what America was, and thusly overthrew what the rest of the world viewed as nothing more than a budding religious dictatorship run by mega-corporations - Obama has been a central role in revitalizing the rest of the world's faith in America and, more importantly, the model that the free world is based on. THAT'S why he won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009... It has nothing to do with his race at all.

[skrump]

Japan actually tried to declare war just before Pearl Harbour, but they ran into the 1941 equivalent of server lagging. Damn US servers.

But no, it's rather silly to talk about the virtue of declaring war first when it comes to America... Technically speaking, the United States has not even issued a declaration of war since World War Two.

They wouldn't of done it in ww2 either if the majority of the population hadn't condoned it after the attack on pearl, they would of simply been aiding foreign allies.
Well maybe I dunno, but I doubt our political body was any less corrupted back then, they might not of tried to covertly avoid the will of the people but I doubt it.

[slime]

Or it could be because the United States government broke far more treaties. But hey, blaming both sides even when the blame is patently unequal seems to be a popular tactic.


History has not shown any such thing. This is an horrendous assertion that is devoid of evidence and reason. What "less than savory" society did you want to destroy with genocide? What "great societies" did you think is built upon genocides?

The current German society.

[starlord]

Declarations of war were kind of hard to declare on scattered tribes, especially when the messenger would return as a scalp-less corpse tied to a rope behind his horse if at all.

I am not trying to justify what either side did or why but like i said earlier trying to place 100% of the blame on the victor alone is misguided at best.

its not. the US simply didnt bother, or act in good faith. eventually some of the indians realized it was futile to even try to establish peace. after so many treaties were disregarded. the eastern indians even established a successful, peaceful society within the US and were forcefully removed from their homes so whites could have their land.

[semaphore]

The current German society.

You think the current German society is built upon genocide? What?

[Stir]

NOPE!

The reason is they do like us, as people (well, at least the more liberal-side they do). What they don't like are the government practices (particularly from the conservative side).

I think it was said best by John Cleese in an interview. "When America elected George Bush, they simply ended up looking like the village idiot. When America REALLY put their foot in it is when they re-elected George Bush". Basically stating that, upon the first election of George W Bush, they thought of it more like a big "ooops!"... but when he got re-elected they were actually shocked and couldn't understand how that happened, thus started a HUGE negative-wave of attention from the rest of the world looking at America going "WTF are you doing!?".

This, by the way, is the real reason Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize that so many people here in America do not understand. Basically by promoting noble ideas and promises to change back to what America was, and thusly overthrew what the rest of the world viewed as nothing more than a budding religious dictatorship run by mega-corporations - Obama has been a central role in revitalizing the rest of the world's faith in America and, more importantly, the model that the free world is based on. THAT'S why he won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009... It has nothing to do with his race at all.

Pretty much true. I'm possibly one of the most outspoken anti-US people on this board, and I have a soft spot for Americans. I really like most Americans I've met; haven't met a single one I find dislikeable. Yet the country as a political and military force... *shudders*

[Lakrin]

You are right but the indians refused to be governed therefor logically they had no say in the actions of the government, furthermore any reparations the indians might of been owed were forfeited as they we killed each other indiscriminately regardless of if that individual/group had anything to do with the suffering inflicted which caused the entire conflict to be based on racism and misplaced vengeance

This is completely and patently false. At the time of their forced relocation, the Cherokee Nation were about as white as anyone else in the US as far as their use of the land, currency and social structure. They had "Americanified" in order to not lose their cultural identity and had even agreed to JOIN THE USA provided they could have some form of self-government (as in, they wanted a Cherokee state within the United States). The US had even agreed to this, until Andrew Jackson sent some representatives to the tribe, got a few of them with no claim to power within the tribe to sign a treaty declaring assent to relocation, and then came out and forced them along the Trail of Tears. Other tribes had formed similar agreements, which were later disregarded.

As far as racism and indiscriminate killing on the part of the Native Americans - of each other or of settlers - I have yet to seen proof of this that didn't boil down to simple propaganda. There was inter-tribal warfare, to be sure, but it was viewed more as a sport than anything. Tribe A raids Tribe B, steals a few pelts, kicks over the fire and maybe wounds 1 or 2 men that go out to intercept. Tribe B counter-raids, kidnaps a woman from Tribe A. Both tribes come together and agree that what was taken belongs to the tribe that got away with it, they part ways until next year. Deaths were few and rare. And when it came to killing settlers, the settlers were an invading force encroaching on lands that had been theirs for thousands of years, using and destroying resources that they had used for just as long. It wasn't indiscriminate killing, it was a counter-attack.

its not. the US simply didnt bother, or act in good faith. eventually some of the indians realized it was futile to even try to establish peace. after so many treaties were disregarded. the eastern indians even established a successful, peaceful society within the US and were forcefully removed from their homes so whites could have their land.

This, basically. That's where the idea of Apache and Comanche raiders come from. They got tired of trying and THEN organized to fight back, not the other way around.

Pretty much true. I'm possibly one of the most outspoken anti-US people on this board, and I have a soft spot for Americans. I really like most Americans I've met; haven't met a single one I find dislikeable. Yet the country as a political and military force... *shudders*

I'm an American and I'm right there with you.

[Grummgug]

America is pretty unique as a world superpower in that freedom of speech exists that allows people to question the country's past openly.

You could debate the long-term ramifications of this. Gossip is a powerful weapon to coerce people to a point of view. If you repeatedly focus on the negative of one particular country, it begins to define it. Other countries without freedom of speech do not suffer from this issue.

[GreatOak]

Canada is removing federal protections on native land.



---------- Post added 2012-12-30 at 05:53 PM ----------

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdvIYWtNc4Q

[Deleted]

America is pretty unique as a world superpower in that freedom of speech exists that allows people to question the country's past openly.

You could debate the long-term ramifications of this. Gossip is a powerful weapon to coerce people to a point of view. If you repeatedly focus on the negative of one particular country, it begins to define it. Other countries without freedom of speech do not suffer from this issue.

Eh. No it isn't. Not even by a long shot.

This...

This is why people get so irritated at many, not all, but many Americans. The sheer arrogance to assume that they, and they alone are at the forefront of democracy and freedom. I, as both a British, and more personally Scottish, citizen am able to freely point out the fact that Oliver Cromwell was a mass murdering religious lunatic. I am quite free to state that Churchill was an Imperialistic bully. Even going further back, I am quite able to point out that William Wallace was a brutal murderer, and that King Robert the Bruce was just as equally vicious in his treatment of the English, as Edward I was in his treatment of the Scots. I receive no reprimand for that, no punishment. Nor can I think of many other nations in Europe where they would be punished for questing history.

tl:dr; get off your high horse.

[GreatOak]

Eh. No it isn't. Not even by a long shot.

This...

This is why people get so irritated at many, not all, but many Americans. The sheer arrogance to assume that they, and they alone are at the forefront of democracy and freedom. I, as both a British, and more personally Scottish, citizen am able to freely point out the fact that Oliver Cromwell was a mass murdering religious lunatic. I am quite free to state that Churchill was an Imperialistic bully. Even going further back, I am quite able to point out that William Wallace was a brutal murderer, and that King Robert the Bruce was just as equally vicious in his treatment of the English, as Edward I was in his treatment of the Scots. I receive no reprimand for that, no punishment. Nor can I think of many other nations in Europe where they would be punished for questing history.

tl:dr; get off your high horse.

Britain isn't a superpower to the degree that America, or even Russia and China are. America is the freest "big-boy" by a long shot.

Concerning Britain though, you can get arrested for inciting hatred; Here you cannot, and I'm not inclined to get into a dick waving contest. I'm just trying to grant some perspective.

[Wikiy]

The current German society.

Except the genocide Germany committed didn't do anything positive to the country itself, on the contrary, it turned it into a desolate field of war with literally no economy, millions of dead civilians (as in, dead German civilians) and dozens of destroyed cities.

---------- Post added 2012-12-30 at 07:45 PM ----------

Britain isn't a superpower to the degree that America, or even Russia and China are. America is the freest "big-boy" by a long shot.

Yeah but that doesn't mean Americans can be proud of themselves because of it because there's a data sample of 1. Used to be 2 in the Cold War and may be 2 or 3 in the future because of China and the potentially federal European Union. So yeah, if someone says: "The US is the only superpower that has proper freedom of speech.", that statement in itself is ridiculous because it isn't any harder for a superpower to be a democratic country than it is for a normal civilized country.

Concerning Britain though, you can get arrested for inciting hatred; Here you cannot, and I'm not inclined to get into a dick waving contest. I'm just trying to grant some perspective.

Personally, I love being free from getting yelled at by hate-filled lunatics. I have that freedom, you don't.

A few months ago there was a politician here who called for the removal of the law that bans anti-gay discrimination. He called homosexuality an abomination of nature and homosexuals freaks. As a gay person, I love whatever law that allowed a judge to order that politician to write a public apology aimed at the gay community in the most read newspapers of my country.

Conclusion? I don't envy the degree to which you have freedom of speech.

[Deleted]

It's conquest, it's happened all throughout history, Mongols, Romans, French.

What is seriously the big deal with it? They did it a long time ago, stop persecuting us in the modern era. :|

My problem comes from the hypocrisy of brushing off the slaughter of indians as a minor thing, while simultaneously condemning the holocaust. They're the same thing, basically.

Yes, if Germany had won WWII and their lebensraum ideals were fulfilled then they would become a normal stable society. And people would brush off the holocaust as a minor thing as well, a couple hundred years later.

That's my problem with America. Hypocrisy.

---------- Post added 2012-12-30 at 08:20 PM ----------

Except the genocide Germany committed didn't do anything positive to the country itself

If they had won the war then they would be an even greater country than they are now. They took a gamble and they lost. But hey, don't say it was all for nothing.

[Deleted]

How many different countries were here killing natives....The French did... The Spanish did...The Dutch did I mean why is this a discussion?! "You Americans killed those poor Indians!" so did the French the Spanish The Dutch and just about any rich European country. Do people forget this?

How many of these europeans went back to the old continent ? Their descendants are the americans, not the french, the british, the spanish and the dutch

The current German society.

Built on genocide ? What kind of advantage does the holocaust exactly provide for Germany ?