WeKnow wrote:I was referring what was done to the natives to even begin US, let alone the sheerest irony that the same people who are caucasian and resultant of immigrants pillaging upon invasion are now the type to say they are the natives and who loathe all outsiders (even kind and well-meaning ones).
Smallpox and other diseases did most of the heavy lifting on that front, but, in any case, the essential nature of the abuses is not too much more problematic than what occurred else-where. The two distinctions that spring readily to mind are the sheer scale of the devastation, which has seldom been equalled historically, and the introduction of a racial hierarchy where, in olden times, a civic, ethnic, or aristocratic hierarchy would have been employed to divide society.
A lot of the indigenous nations, especially beginning at the inception of the so-called Indian Wars, adopted a hostile stance towards incursions even by ostensibly peaceful surveyors and settlers because they understood that agricultural and industrial development of the land they inhabitted was incompatible with their way of life. It's not really altogether surprising then that the present population is likewise resistance to large-scale immigration that results in cultural and economic shifts. It's functionally the same phenomenon repeating itself. But we're getting a bit off-topic and this particular topic is more of an appetizer for the topic of the thread itself.
WeKnow wrote:I speak not just of the horrific corruption and conquest mentality that US has towards the middle east or Africa during its slave trade but that the very nation itself is founded by and for white supremacist psychopaths. There was not a single founder who was not complicit in it and any who spoke out against it were silenced and bullied by those very founders.
First and foremost, that's not true and suggests a very narrow, reductionist, and confused understanding of who precisely the Founders were. They were a diverse group of people with disparate aims, ideologies, and attitudes towards racial equality. Several Founders spoke against slavery and the extermination of indigenous peoples. So that entire argument is ahistorical nonsense. Additionally, the founders of the other polities I mentioned all have the same problems on a large-scale.
WeKnow wrote:Whether you are Zulu or American or any ethnicity at all, celebrate and respect the parts of your history you think deserve that pride. If you choose to celebrate disgusting parts of your history and glorify people who were very significant in those horrors and you then glorify them as nigh-saintly, don't be shocked when an outraged protest many generations later happens to feel the opposite way. It's only natural, in my eyes at least.
They don't glorify them because of the horrors or atrocities. They glorify them because in spite or even because of those atrocities they managed to do worthwhile things. Shaka Zulu created larger, more centralized, and more viable polities by initiating the Mfecane. The leaders of the Sioux allowed their nation to flourish by driving out or subjugating the Cheyenne and Arikara. And the protests don't matter all that much. That's an appeal to popular appeal which is sadly undermined by the fact that the general public doesn't really agree with these protestors.
Cuban communists aren't a reliable source on anything. And most of these sources are interesting thought experiments or pop history at best. You can't give a proper psychological diagnosis to someone who isn't your patient for instance.