What's the difference between being killed off en masse and peacefully living and interbreeding with your neighbours? I would think that's rather obvious.
Advertisement
by Ifreann » Fri Mar 02, 2012 6:13 am
by Farnhamia » Fri Mar 02, 2012 6:18 am
by Ifreann » Fri Mar 02, 2012 6:26 am
Farnhamia wrote:Ifreann wrote:What's the difference between being killed off en masse and peacefully living and interbreeding with your neighbours? I would think that's rather obvious.
Oh, come, come, don't you know that all human nature is red in tooth and claw? That there have never been more than a few humans, mutants probably, who have wanted to live peacefully with their neighbors. It is our nature to slaughter everyone who is directly related to us or who isn't a close relation by marriage, and even they are deep suspect.
by Ashmoria » Fri Mar 02, 2012 6:30 am
by Grave_n_idle » Fri Mar 02, 2012 6:37 am
Walden Pond wrote:The first people of North America were from Europe. Thousands of years later, invaders from Asia crossed the land bridge from Siberia and stole our land.New evidence suggests Stone Age hunters from Europe discovered America
New archaeological evidence suggests that America was first discovered by Stone Age people from Europe – 10,000 years before the Siberian-originating ancestors of the American Indians set foot in the New World. A remarkable series of several dozen European-style stone tools, dating back between 19,000 and 26,000 years, have been discovered at six locations along the US east coast. Three of the sites are on the Delmarva Peninsular in Maryland, discovered by archaeologist Dr Darrin Lowery of the University of Delaware. One is in Pennsylvania and another in Virginia. A sixth was discovered by scallop-dredging fishermen on the seabed 60 miles from the Virginian coast on what, in prehistoric times, would have been dry land.
Does this information change how you view race relations in North America? How you view the "Native Americans" and "First Nations"?
by Cill Charthaigh » Fri Mar 02, 2012 6:52 am
Hallistar wrote:Keronians wrote:
And an eye for an eye makes the world blind?
Or, at the very least, punishing descendants of supposed criminals is unfair. Especially when the ones doing the punishing themselves didn't know about the crimes of the ancestors.
There are a lot of arguments better than "they didn't use guns!"
What are you talking about? I said the europeans who originally came here and then were taken out, were killed in tribal battles that didn't involve gun weaponry and diseases. Therefore, it wouldn't have been comparable to the natives' situation who replaced the europeans, who got killed in battles involving gun weaponry and diseases by the Europeans.
by Ifreann » Fri Mar 02, 2012 6:54 am
Cill Charthaigh wrote:Natives died and were defeated. Can't fix that.
by Cill Charthaigh » Fri Mar 02, 2012 6:55 am
Ifreann wrote:Cill Charthaigh wrote:Natives died and were defeated. Can't fix that.
Not yet....
by Ifreann » Fri Mar 02, 2012 6:57 am
by Samuraikoku » Fri Mar 02, 2012 7:05 am
by Farnhamia » Fri Mar 02, 2012 7:06 am
by Samuraikoku » Fri Mar 02, 2012 7:08 am
by Ifreann » Fri Mar 02, 2012 7:10 am
by Ashmoria » Fri Mar 02, 2012 7:10 am
Cill Charthaigh wrote:Hallistar wrote:
What are you talking about? I said the europeans who originally came here and then were taken out, were killed in tribal battles that didn't involve gun weaponry and diseases. Therefore, it wouldn't have been comparable to the natives' situation who replaced the europeans, who got killed in battles involving gun weaponry and diseases by the Europeans.
Would you say the natives were outcompeted?
They couldn't adapt (develop and use modern weaponry) so they died. Simple as that. They got guns later and they had bows so your argument is invalid. Neither had guns in the beginning.
Natives died and were defeated. Can't fix that.
by Gigaverse » Fri Mar 02, 2012 7:13 am
Tubbsalot wrote:I'm so glad this thread turned out to be about how white people are genetically superior.
Art-person(?). Japan liker. tired-ish.
Student inlinguistics???. On-and-off writer.
MAKE CAKE NOT stupidshiticanmakefunof.born in, raised in and emigrated from vietbongistan lolol
Operating this polity based on preferences and narrative purposes
clowning incident | clowning incident | bottom text
can produce noises in (in order of grasp) vietbongistani, oldspeak
and bonjourois (learning weebspeak and hitlerian at uni)
by Farnhamia » Fri Mar 02, 2012 7:21 am
by Basra » Fri Mar 02, 2012 7:39 am
Meowfoundland wrote:I view them exactly the same as I did before. Why should my views change?
Terra wrote:In fact, Fascism still exists, today called "Republican Party".
by Tekania » Fri Mar 02, 2012 7:45 am
Basra wrote:Meowfoundland wrote:I view them exactly the same as I did before. Why should my views change?
Because now the Natives have no reason to complain about being nearly wiped out by the 19th century Americans since they did it to the native whites. So now the whites can retake controll of the casino market from the reds.
by Farnhamia » Fri Mar 02, 2012 7:50 am
Tekania wrote:Basra wrote:Because now the Natives have no reason to complain about being nearly wiped out by the 19th century Americans since they did it to the native whites. So now the whites can retake controll of the casino market from the reds.
I don't see how that follows... The natives now are the ancestors of the natives we have moved, relocated and such.... whereas the "whites" now are not the ancestors of the hypothetical "whites" then. The populations which, assuming the hypothesis is correct, were around back then were either absorbed by the native population (ie, the natives now are the descendents), or they were out-competed and ceased to exist.
by Basra » Fri Mar 02, 2012 7:55 am
Tekania wrote:I don't see how that follows... The natives now are the ancestors of the natives we have moved, relocated and such.... whereas the "whites" now are not the ancestors of the hypothetical "whites" then. The populations which, assuming the hypothesis is correct, were around back then were either absorbed by the native population (ie, the natives now are the descendents), or they were out-competed and ceased to exist.
Terra wrote:In fact, Fascism still exists, today called "Republican Party".
by Tekania » Fri Mar 02, 2012 7:57 am
Farnhamia wrote:Tekania wrote:
I don't see how that follows... The natives now are the ancestors of the natives we have moved, relocated and such.... whereas the "whites" now are not the ancestors of the hypothetical "whites" then. The populations which, assuming the hypothesis is correct, were around back then were either absorbed by the native population (ie, the natives now are the descendents), or they were out-competed and ceased to exist.
How long have you been posting here? If only one "white man" were absorbed or out competed, it would justify any and all actions taken against the mud ... the "natives."
by Tekania » Fri Mar 02, 2012 9:04 am
Basra wrote:Tekania wrote:I don't see how that follows... The natives now are the ancestors of the natives we have moved, relocated and such.... whereas the "whites" now are not the ancestors of the hypothetical "whites" then. The populations which, assuming the hypothesis is correct, were around back then were either absorbed by the native population (ie, the natives now are the descendents), or they were out-competed and ceased to exist.
The only reason modern whites didn't kill off all the reds was because the damn liberals whined and complained about it too much. Now that we are justified in killing the reds because they killed our ancestors (they were from Europe). No body will be left to run the very profitable casino business previously dominated by the reds leaving some good old white collar white boys to jump in and make a profit (plus some jobs). And that is how killing the American Indians will save the economy. THE END
by Nazis in Space » Fri Mar 02, 2012 9:07 am
Paleolithic~ The neolithic only came into Europe by way of immigrants in the first place, and genetic exchange between the H&G locals and the farming immigrants was minimal for the first few thousand years.Tekania wrote:Basra wrote:The only reason modern whites didn't kill off all the reds was because the damn liberals whined and complained about it too much. Now that we are justified in killing the reds because they killed our ancestors (they were from Europe). No body will be left to run the very profitable casino business previously dominated by the reds leaving some good old white collar white boys to jump in and make a profit (plus some jobs). And that is how killing the American Indians will save the economy. THE END
They were not your ancestors... even assuming this hypothesis was right they were relative cousins to neolithic European cultures which your ancestors displaced.
by Farnhamia » Fri Mar 02, 2012 9:17 am
Tekania wrote:Basra wrote:The only reason modern whites didn't kill off all the reds was because the damn liberals whined and complained about it too much. Now that we are justified in killing the reds because they killed our ancestors (they were from Europe). No body will be left to run the very profitable casino business previously dominated by the reds leaving some good old white collar white boys to jump in and make a profit (plus some jobs). And that is how killing the American Indians will save the economy. THE END
They were not your ancestors... even assuming this hypothesis was right they were relative cousins to neolithic European cultures which your ancestors displaced.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Ariddia, Atrito, Dimetrodon Empire, Duvniask, El Lazaro, Emotional Support Crocodile, Fartsniffage, Forsher, Google [Bot], Greater North American Confederacy, HISPIDA, Ifreann, Kerwa, Pale Dawn, Philjia, Slavkian, Statesburg, The Huskar Social Union
Advertisement