Yes I am. In fact, holding the White Man to exactly the same standard as every other variation of human when they decided to take something from someone else, whether that be The Zulus in Africa, the Mongols in Asia, the Chinese in Asia, the Polynesians in the Pacific, or any other sub division of human kind that at one time in their History have decided to subjugate another people. Originally Posted by Jackie SSo in your mind the only thing that Hitler did that was wrong was to lose the war. Is that right?
- tandyscone
- 12-11-2015, 03:46 PM
- DSK
- 12-11-2015, 05:02 PM
- DSK
- 12-11-2015, 05:02 PM
- DSK
- 12-11-2015, 05:04 PM
The Native Americans were trying to defend their land. The white Europeans were the aggressors. They were lured into treaties, and then slaughtered, and the land taken back. Funny how the treaties were ignored when gold was discovered. Yes, land is acquired by conquest, but our treatment of Native Americans during that conquest was horrific, and comparable to the tactics used by ISIS today. We could have reached peace with the Native Americans, but we broke the treaties. We lied. Because "God" wanted the white folk to have the continent. Remember Manifest Destiny?I want to give the land back, but perhaps the Indians will take compensation instead. Either way, I'm trying to make them feel better about our paleface presence in the lands they were given by God.
You just can't trust religionists, or government - EVER! Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy
- i'va biggen
- 12-11-2015, 05:08 PM
The Native Americans were trying to defend their land. The white Europeans were the aggressors. They were lured into treaties, and then slaughtered, and the land taken back. Funny how the treaties were ignored when gold was discovered. Yes, land is acquired by conquest, but our treatment of Native Americans during that conquest was horrific, and comparable to the tactics used by ISIS today. We could have reached peace with the Native Americans, but we broke the treaties. We lied. Because "God" wanted the white folk to have the continent. Remember Manifest Destiny?I doubt you will garner any sympathy for your people here dull knife. The Kansa (south wind people) never killed one white person.
You just can't trust religionists, or government - EVER! Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy
- DSK
- 12-11-2015, 05:11 PM
I doubt you will garner any sympathy for your people here dull knife. The Kansa (south wind people) never killed one white person. Originally Posted by i'va biggenApparently their fellow Indians didn't act as charitably.
Although hostilities between whites and Indians occurred throughout the West before the end of the Civil War, the Plains Indian Wars became of major concern to Kansans after 1865. Various Plains tribes associated with Kansas, such as the Cheyenne and Kiowa, clashed with white settlers who encroached upon their traditional hunting grounds during the years following the war. Thus, Kansans of all races experienced warfare of a different variety during the late 1860s and 1870s as white Americans sought to conquer the American West.
- from kshs.org
- i'va biggen
- 12-11-2015, 05:35 PM
Apparently their fellow Indians didn't act as charitably.Prior to becoming a state the tribes here were.
Although hostilities between whites and Indians occurred throughout the West before the end of the Civil War, the Plains Indian Wars became of major concern to Kansans after 1865. Various Plains tribes associated with Kansas, such as the Cheyenne and Kiowa, clashed with white settlers who encroached upon their traditional hunting grounds during the years following the war. Thus, Kansans of all races experienced warfare of a different variety during the late 1860s and 1870s as white Americans sought to conquer the American West.
- from kshs.org Originally Posted by DSK
Arapaho, Comanche, Kanza, Osage, Pawnee.
Later others were resettled like Delaware,Ioway Kickapoo, Miami, Osage, Potawatami, Sac and Fox, Shawnee,Wyandot,Wichita.
There is a lot of diff between just Kansas and the great plains.
- Mr MojoRisin
- 12-11-2015, 06:10 PM
- tandyscone
- 12-11-2015, 06:37 PM
- I B Hankering
- 12-11-2015, 06:43 PM
- WombRaider
- 12-11-2015, 06:55 PM
The Native Americans were trying to defend their land. The white Europeans were the aggressors. They were lured into treaties, and then slaughtered, and the land taken back. Funny how the treaties were ignored when gold was discovered. Yes, land is acquired by conquest, but our treatment of Native Americans during that conquest was horrific, and comparable to the tactics used by ISIS today. We could have reached peace with the Native Americans, but we broke the treaties. We lied. Because "God" wanted the white folk to have the continent. Remember Manifest Destiny?We are in complete agreement on this. The great wizard in the sky wanted the white man to have it.
You just can't trust religionists, or government - EVER! Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy
- WombRaider
- 12-11-2015, 06:56 PM
- I B Hankering
- 12-11-2015, 07:06 PM
Bullshit. More white man double talk. Originally Posted by WombRaiderAnd you still think enslaving and cannibalizing your cousins in the next city over is just as acceptable today as your ggggggggggg great-grandpappy thought it was in his day and age, you 2015 DOTY and "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas.
- tandyscone
- 12-11-2015, 07:37 PM
Those are two different epochs with substantially different rules governing men and their societies; so, you're trying to make a facetious apple to orange comparison. Originally Posted by I B HankeringThe post I was responding to cited examples over more than a millenium. Now you're saying a couple of centuries changes everything. If you want to use contemporary rules governing men and their societies, evaluate the way the US treated the First Nations by the principles that the colonies expressed when breaking ties with England. I think you will have a hard time proving that the United States treated the First Nations better the England treated the colonies.
I am not trying to be facetious in any of this. I am dead serious. Yes, I picked an extreme example, but my intent was to show that when you apply the argument to other cases, it is not so compelling as it appears.
- I B Hankering
- 12-11-2015, 07:50 PM
The post I was responding to cited examples over more than a millenium. Now you're saying a couple of centuries changes everything. If you want to use contemporary rules governing men and their societies, evaluate the way the US treated the First Nations by the principles that the colonies expressed when breaking ties with England. I think you will have a hard time proving that the United States treated the First Nations better the England treated the colonies.A couple of centuries does make a difference. Countries without monarchies, capitalism, Marxism, the Industrial Revolution, the end of slavery in Western societies, the Red Cross (and other, similar charitable organizations), women's suffrage, modern hygiene, are all products of the last 250 years. Imposing your values on a 16th century Spaniard is foolish. He was required to live and exist in a society that is different from yours. Cortes lived in a cruel world, where his forebears had been fighting Islam for some 800 years. It should come as no surprise that he carried those values with him to the New World. On the other hand, many of our modern values were established prior to Hitler's rise to power; hence, he acted outside the norms of society. You make an apples to oranges comparison when you try to impose your 21st century values on those who lived 150 or more years ago.
I am not trying to be facetious in any of this. I am dead serious. Yes, I picked an extreme example, but my intent was to show that when you apply the argument to other cases, it is not so compelling as it appears. Originally Posted by tandyscone