You haven't answered my question yet. Who, according to you, is indigenous? Originally Posted by JD BarleycornI can explain it to you but I cant understand it for you. I will do my best though.
I can explain it to you but I cant understand it for you. I will do my best though.Winner gets the spoils...'nuff said!
In post #19 I responded with a confirmation of what you claimed to be true.
That was my attempt to get us on the same page, it failed.
I hoped that you would think on it and come to the conclusion that if the "Indians were not indigenous then certainly the Pilgrims were not either. That being true then the Pilgrims had no claim to this land and no birthrights .
Indians settled all of America well before any Whiteman step foot on it. Mexican settled over quite a bit of it before the Whiteman did also. If there is any pecking order of who is welcome it would be. First Nations, Mexicans and Asians in that order than I say Spaniards because they coexisted instead of killing them off for the most part. Whitemen are at the bottom of the barrel. The only reason Whitemen are in control is because of disease and weapons. Had they not Killed so many with disease and then wiped out the rest with guns it would be a whole different story.
I am part white so dont think I have some type of an axe to grind with White People. I am merely pointing out the inanity of your point of view. Originally Posted by slingblade
In capitalism, output is measured in dollars, and so are taxes, so no matter how hard one "works" by any subjective definition, the true producers are the rich, even if they are assholes. Originally Posted by Jewish LawyerThanks for pointing out the flaw of Capitalism. Are you saying that is how it should be? That as time goes by we are just a giant monopoly game with someone eventually owning it all? Not my idea of right and wrong by any means.
Thanks for pointing out the flaw of Capitalism. Are you saying that is how it should be? That as time goes by we are just a giant monopoly game with someone eventually owning it all? Not my idea of right and wrong by any means.All forms of Government have their flaws. If one isn't wealthy under Capitalism they sure as hell won't be under any other form of Government. I'll always take my chances under capitalism.
That concept worked when there were frontiers and expansion options but the planet has ran out of room. Maybe the Capitalist should build some ships and sail to a deserted Continent. Originally Posted by slingblade
I can explain it to you but I cant understand it for you. I will do my best though.Poor argument. You accuse the White Man of coming last. The White Man! You also use the term Mexicans but Mexico is a political invention so Mexicans did not exist until it was created. I'm going to use the term Indians as a general term. The Indians would have been from the Aztecs (your semi-Mexicans) to the Mayans and even the Souix. I think you have to agree that there is a huge difference between the Cheyenne and the Incas. One built cities and the other built villages. Does this reflect the truth that the Cheyenne, Blackfoot, and Mohican came later and didn't develope as much as their southern cousins? Just a thought.
In post #19 I responded with a confirmation of what you claimed to be true.
That was my attempt to get us on the same page, it failed.
I hoped that you would think on it and come to the conclusion that if the "Indians were not indigenous then certainly the Pilgrims were not either. That being true then the Pilgrims had no claim to this land and no birthrights .
Indians settled all of America well before any Whiteman step foot on it. Mexican settled over quite a bit of it before the Whiteman did also. If there is any pecking order of who is welcome it would be. First Nations, Mexicans and Asians in that order than I say Spaniards because they coexisted instead of killing them off for the most part. Whitemen are at the bottom of the barrel. The only reason Whitemen are in control is because of disease and weapons. Had they not Killed so many with disease and then wiped out the rest with guns it would be a whole different story.
I am part white so dont think I have some type of an axe to grind with White People. I am merely pointing out the inanity of your point of view. Originally Posted by slingblade
Poor argument. You accuse the White Man of coming last. The White Man! You also use the term Mexicans but Mexico is a political invention so Mexicans did not exist until it was created. I'm going to use the term Indians as a general term. The Indians would have been from the Aztecs (your semi-Mexicans) to the Mayans and even the Souix. I think you have to agree that there is a huge difference between the Cheyenne and the Incas. One built cities and the other built villages. Does this reflect the truth that the Cheyenne, Blackfoot, and Mohican came later and didn't develope as much as their southern cousins? Just a thought.Well put!
Okay, the White Man came and the Spanish are White Men. Why you think otherwise is revealing. It just shows that you have a problem with Anglo-Germanic culture and not White Men in general. Here is another thing you missed out on. The Russians had settled part of California in the distant past but left. Aren't they Asian but maybe White? Anyway, the White Man is here and he got control of the land. How? Sometimes he settled it alongside the Indian population. Remember, the Indians are said not to believe in ownership so the land is open to anyone. That is not stealing. Sometimes the White Man bought the land. An agreement that this is now ours and not yours anymore. That is not stealing. Sometimes they fought a war over the land and to victor belongs the spoils. That is not stealing, that is universal. If you complain about that then you dismiss the fact that what if the Indians had won the war. Would they complain then? No, the stealing came about when treaties were written and then broken by the various governments in Washington and the states.
Meanwhile down south, the Aztecs, the Mayans, and the Incas ceased to exist. They were killed of by war, murder, and disease by those nicer Spanish you mentioned earlier. In Mexico (which still didn't exist yet), the Spanish enslaved the local Indians and bred with them (pussy is pussy). They established the city of Mexico and spread out into North America and South America. Where does that leave us....right! The Indians lost wars, died off, and retreated west or disappeared. The Spanish became part of the local Indian population and divided into the lower class Indios and the upper class Mexicans (of Spanish descent). Now they never really recognized the Indians in Mexico as they became part of them so there were few treaties. In the north governments of the French, British, and Dutch did recognize the sovereignty of the Indian tribes. As a people, the Anglo Europeans treated the Indigenous peoples much better than did the Hispanic Europeans though because of individuals things did not turn out much better. Still, in North America the tribes still exist unlike Mexico where the peoples exist but it is difficult to prove a tribe except with DNA and the mix is in. Where exactly does the Indian leave off and the Spanish begin?
Like someone said, to the victor goes the spoils and the Europeans won.
If you want to see something similar go look at the Philippines. Polynesian people invades by the Chinese, Japanese, Spanish, Portuguese, English, and Americans. The women there are spectacular. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn
Poor argument. You accuse the White Man of coming last. The White Man! You also use the term Mexicans but Mexico is a political invention so Mexicans did not exist until it was created. I'm going to use the term Indians as a general term. The Indians would have been from the Aztecs (your semi-Mexicans) to the Mayans and even the Souix. I think you have to agree that there is a huge difference between the Cheyenne and the Incas. One built cities and the other built villages. Does this reflect the truth that the Cheyenne, Blackfoot, and Mohican came later and didn't develope as much as their southern cousins? Just a thought.Some how you act like the white man was here first How did that happen.
Okay, the White Man came and the Spanish are White Men. Why you think otherwise is revealing. It just shows that you have a problem with Anglo-Germanic culture and not White Men in general. Here is another thing you missed out on. The Russians had settled part of California in the distant past but left. Aren't they Asian but maybe White? Anyway, the White Man is here and he got control of the land. How? Sometimes he settled it alongside the Indian population. Remember, the Indians are said not to believe in ownership so the land is open to anyone. That is not stealing. Sometimes the White Man bought the land. An agreement that this is now ours and not yours anymore. That is not stealing. Sometimes they fought a war over the land and to victor belongs the spoils. That is not stealing, that is universal. If you complain about that then you dismiss the fact that what if the Indians had won the war. Would they complain then? No, the stealing came about when treaties were written and then broken by the various governments in Washington and the states.
Meanwhile down south, the Aztecs, the Mayans, and the Incas ceased to exist. They were killed of by war, murder, and disease by those nicer Spanish you mentioned earlier. In Mexico (which still didn't exist yet), the Spanish enslaved the local Indians and bred with them (pussy is pussy). They established the city of Mexico and spread out into North America and South America. Where does that leave us....right! The Indians lost wars, died off, and retreated west or disappeared. The Spanish became part of the local Indian population and divided into the lower class Indios and the upper class Mexicans (of Spanish descent). Now they never really recognized the Indians in Mexico as they became part of them so there were few treaties. In the north governments of the French, British, and Dutch did recognize the sovereignty of the Indian tribes. As a people, the Anglo Europeans treated the Indigenous peoples much better than did the Hispanic Europeans though because of individuals things did not turn out much better. Still, in North America the tribes still exist unlike Mexico where the peoples exist but it is difficult to prove a tribe except with DNA and the mix is in. Where exactly does the Indian leave off and the Spanish begin?
Like someone said, to the victor goes the spoils and the Europeans won.
If you want to see something similar go look at the Philippines. Polynesian people invades by the Chinese, Japanese, Spanish, Portuguese, English, and Americans. The women there are spectacular. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn
Olathe is "Lovely" by the way.
