Moon-Crane wrote: to modernise networking capacity.
I've always like the British use of S's instead of Z's!
Moon-Crane wrote: to modernise networking capacity.
Dorset Girl wrote: The USA has civil war, slavery and the treatment of native Americans as some examples of that. Britain has Empire (i.e. stealing countries!!), slavery and war in it's story too.
JT the Rightwing American wrote:Now, as for the 'native' Americans, it is true that we could have behaved better in many circumstances. But it is also true that they could have as well. Why should we have left this vast unexploited resource base to go undeveloped under scattered tribal cultures? Why did they kill and scalp my Anglo ancestors? Why did each tribe have 'braves' and warriors that killed other tribes people? Its a two-way street with the big picture in our favor but you wouldn't know that by reading/listening to liberal media/academia.
Dorset Girl wrote:
Okay - I have just spent quite a while reading about the Native Americans
Dorset Girl wrote:I've looked at a number of different websites, and tried to see things from 'both sides' of the argument. However, there is very little I could find to support the treatment of Native Americans by European settlers.
Dorset Girl wrote:Whether this is due to the media / academics having a biased view, or due to the fact that actually the views represented are accurate, I don't know.
Dorset Girl wrote: As I understand it, a vast amount of Native Americans died due to the introduction of European diseases such as Smallpox, measles and chickenpox, to which they had no natural immunity. Although some people argue that this was deliberate ‘germ warfare’, I don’t know whether or not that was the case, so I’m not saying that these deaths were deliberate – but it can’t be denied that they happened, and that this was a direct, negative result of European settlement.
Dorset Girl wrote:In the C19th, the US was expanding westwards, and Native Americans were relocated in vast quantities. In 1830, the Indian Removal Act was passed, which enabled removal of hundreds of thousands of Native Americans further to the west. From what I’ve read, this was supposed to be voluntary, but that in reality, great pressure was placed on them to move and force was used in a lot of cases.
Dorset Girl wrote:There are even instances such as President Jackson ordering the killing of as many bison as possible to eliminate the Plain Indian’s main food source.
Dorset Girl wrote:There were huge efforts made to ‘integrate’ the Native Americans into the ‘new’ culture, but there was no compromise involved – apparently the children were sent to boarding schools largely run by missionaries, were forbidden form speaking their own language and had Christianity forced upon them. According to Amnesty International, physical, sexual and mental abuse was rife in these schools too.
Dorset Girl wrote:So, have things changed in the last hundred years, or are there lasting scars?
Dorset Girl wrote:Military defeat, cultural pressure, confinement on reservations, forced cultural assimilation, outlawing of native languages and culture, termination policies of the 1950s and 1960s and earlier, slavery, and poverty have had deleterious effects on Native Americans' mental and physical health. Contemporary health problems suffered disproportionately include alcoholism, heart disease, diabetes, and suicide.
Dorset Girl wrote:What I can't get past here is - it was their land!
JT the Rightwing American wrote:Dorset Girl wrote:
Okay - I have just spent quite a while reading about the Native Americans
There is your first mistake in terms of finding out the truth. My comment about media/academia does not come out of a vacuum. The vast majority of the stuff you read about the 'Native Americans' is biased liberal propaganda.Dorset Girl wrote:I've looked at a number of different websites, and tried to see things from 'both sides' of the argument. However, there is very little I could find to support the treatment of Native Americans by European settlers.
See my comments above.Dorset Girl wrote:Whether this is due to the media / academics having a biased view, or due to the fact that actually the views represented are accurate, I don't know.
So you feel confident enough to argue the points? I would suggest to anyone not to believe everything they read and hear. Especially in a corrupt (in terms of liberal bias- and they know it) media and academia.
JT the Rightwing American wrote:Dorset Girl wrote: As I understand it, a vast amount of Native Americans died due to the introduction of European diseases such as Smallpox, measles and chickenpox, to which they had no natural immunity. Although some people argue that this was deliberate ‘germ warfare’, I don’t know whether or not that was the case, so I’m not saying that these deaths were deliberate – but it can’t be denied that they happened, and that this was a direct, negative result of European settlement.
So? Are you seriously suggesting that the Europeans had a choice in being carriers of Euro germs? Natural but unfortunate consequence of interaction between long-time geographically separated populations. Even if they knowingly, deliberately spread germs (as liberal propagandists contend) through blankets and what not, the violent conflict on both sides was often brutal. Why are you emphasizing only the Euro-on-indian violence and not the scalping, dismembering, and massacring the Indians perpetrated on the Europeans?
JT the Rightwing American wrote:Dorset Girl wrote:In the C19th, the US was expanding westwards, and Native Americans were relocated in vast quantities. In 1830, the Indian Removal Act was passed, which enabled removal of hundreds of thousands of Native Americans further to the west. From what I’ve read, this was supposed to be voluntary, but that in reality, great pressure was placed on them to move and force was used in a lot of cases.
Our behavior was not always ideal. There are cases where Indians were willing to assimilate but were still moved. That was regrettable behavior. But don't loose site of the big picture. Age old guilt should only go so far.
Dorset Girl wrote:There are even instances such as President Jackson ordering the killing of as many bison as possible to eliminate the Plain Indian’s main food source.
One thing imho about liberals is an inability to accept reality and human nature. War is hell. Especially so in 1830 or so. Libs have somehow successfully constructed a modern-day paradigm whereby the horrible natural truths about human nature and war are artificially softened - to our ultimate harm. We can't interrogate evil, dumb, culturally inferior terrorists at Guantanamo Bay; We can't accidentally kill one single civilian even when the evil, dumb, culturally inferior terrorists intentionally hide their warriors among women and children; we can't common sensically wire tap suspected terrorists in the United States; and on and on.
And another thing - kind of humorous, at least to me. Why did the 'Native Americans' have to invade a pristine natural environment of Buffalo and other fauna and flora, and kill, eat, and displace them? I thought liberals
say we can't eat anything that has a face. I thought the Indians were the superior culture that lived at one with nature.
JT the Rightwing American wrote:Dorset Girl wrote:There were huge efforts made to ‘integrate’ the Native Americans into the ‘new’ culture, but there was no compromise involved – apparently the children were sent to boarding schools largely run by missionaries, were forbidden form speaking their own language and had Christianity forced upon them. According to Amnesty International, physical, sexual and mental abuse was rife in these schools too.
To the extent some of these more extreme items are true - and there have been many exaggerations by the lib propagandists, I will say again that we made mistakes. Again don't miss the big picture, however. Everyone was better off with having assimilation mostly happen Indian to Euro and not vice versa.
Euro culture was superior in advancement to that of the 'native' populations. Its my belief that liberals are confused in their application of cultural relativism. Cultural relativism is better viewed as a tool anthropologists use to appropriately and effectively study 'foreign' cultures. Its an academic mind-set that allows them to properly study cultural phenomena. The broader liberal public mistakenly and destructively whack the rest of us sane people over the head with crap like "one culture is not superior to another-only different", "multi-culturalism is the best organizing principle of a nation", "We should teach the culture of 'Native Americans' as much as dead white European males".
Dorset Girl wrote:So, have things changed in the last hundred years, or are there lasting scars?
I still have lasting scars from when Caesar invaded the northern lands and massacred my Celtic/Germanic ancestors.
Dorset Girl wrote:Military defeat, cultural pressure, confinement on reservations, forced cultural assimilation, outlawing of native languages and culture, termination policies of the 1950s and 1960s and earlier, slavery, and poverty have had deleterious effects on Native Americans' mental and physical health. Contemporary health problems suffered disproportionately include alcoholism, heart disease, diabetes, and suicide.
Modern liberal dysfunction of victimization mentality.
Dorset Girl wrote:What I can't get past here is - it was their land!
What was 'their' land? I guess a good deal of my answer was implied in my post "Why should we have left this vast unexploited resource base to go undeveloped under scattered tribal cultures". Lots of land. Sparsely populated. What legal, ethical, or practical reasons would one conclude that the whole damn place - from the tip of present day South America to the North pole should have been considered the sole property of a backward and scattered people?
Dorset Girl wrote:As an aside, I have never tried to categorise myself as left-wing, right-wing or anything else. I wouldn't know how to go about it. As I am arguing against you at present, no doubt you would say I was 'left-wing' - but we are only looking at particular issues here, so this doesn't necessarily fully represent my overall views on the world as a whole! How can I find out which 'category' I fit into? I need some kind of 'quiz' or something!
Moon-Crane wrote:Btw, DG, my graph from that site, from a year or so ago, came out similar-ish. It was just into the left, green side, but halfway more further down towards the Libertarian edge. (if that makes sense i'll see if i've still got it saved somewhere).
To say all research, education, history is based on some mystical, magical, mythical left-wing, liberalist, yadda yadda, point of view, is as mystifying to me than any extreme conspiracy theorist's views of any affairs that i ever take time out to read. You can take into account your belief of the perspective that an author/academic is coming from when digesting the information, but to simply dismiss it, or accept it, simply for being published by somebody who is perceived as a 'left' or 'right' thinking person, is a bit restrictive, in my eyes.
Dorset Girl wrote:Dorset Girl wrote:As an aside, I have never tried to categorise myself as left-wing, right-wing or anything else. I wouldn't know how to go about it. As I am arguing against you at present, no doubt you would say I was 'left-wing' - but we are only looking at particular issues here, so this doesn't necessarily fully represent my overall views on the world as a whole! How can I find out which 'category' I fit into? I need some kind of 'quiz' or something!
Apologies that this is my fifth post in a row on this thread... but I found a quiz which seemed quite comprehensive - here.
I answered the questions honestly, and here are my results, which don't mean a lot to me, but still...
ouroboros wrote:That was a very interesting quiz DG ta, the fact I needed a thesaurus for some of it is no never mind
Can't get blasted tiny pic to work to show my graph, so to the left two sqauares over and towards the libertarian bottom four sqaures down [spoiler][/spoiler]
Moon-Crane wrote:Maybe JT could validate his corner by referencing all the 'proper', 'valid', areas of research that he's learned from. The 'correct' view of analysing these events of the past? Unfortunately, we obviously have no way of getting first hand accounts from anyone involved. Thus, JT is implying there is a wealth of data, from another source outside of 'normal' circles, to access, if the regular stuff is all wrong. JT must have learned from somewhere to 'feel confident' in his own views of arguing the case.
Dorset Girl wrote:ouroboros wrote:That was a very interesting quiz DG ta, the fact I needed a thesaurus for some of it is no never mind
Can't get blasted tiny pic to work to show my graph, so to the left two sqauares over and towards the libertarian bottom four sqaures down [spoiler][/spoiler]
So you, me and MC are all in about the same location - interesting!
Dorset Girl wrote:ouroboros wrote:That was a very interesting quiz DG ta, the fact I needed a thesaurus for some of it is no never mind
Can't get blasted tiny pic to work to show my graph, so to the left two sqauares over and towards the libertarian bottom four sqaures down [spoiler][/spoiler]
So you, me and MC are all in about the same location - interesting!
Moon-Crane wrote:Sound like i'm just beneath Ouroboros.... on the graph! You lot and your minds
Moon-Crane wrote:Yep, seems so. Sound like i'm just beneath Ouroboros.... on the graph! You lot and your minds
Return to Off Topic Games / Polls / Quizzes
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
© Site contents are copyright Stuart Lee 1999 - 2024. This is a Frasier fan site and is not affiliated in any way with the program, Grub St Productions, Paramount or NBC. |