Yay for artysim!

I've never understood quite how Christians reconcile Jesus' example with warlike ways and genocide either, particularly nowadays when they can actually read.

If anything Jesus' example seems to demand a kind of primitive communalism instead of capitalist nation-states.

Native American culture was not "replaced", it was "genocided"



You were born in the focal point of American propaganda during the Cold War, by heaven's sake! Off course you wanted to join those peoples.

You are simply trying to justify what Stardock is simply calling "cultural conquest". As I've seen in a cartoon, "I'll stop being intolerant when these people will stop dressing like freaks and act like me".

You want a 1-culture world, where everybody play baseball/football (not likely, loool), are against abortion, and have a gun-worshiping culture?

Hey.. no, wait. He doesn't want an AMERICAN culture everywhere. He wants a CONSERVATIVE AMERICAN culture. I mean, he doesn't consider the liberals to be "american".

Oh, and I find your points from 1 to 6 pretty pointless, actually. You simply are propaging conservative propaganda that Liberal simply hate the country they live in, hate the jews, etc... Which is kinda.. ehh.. (darn, I've been stroked in another blog because I used that word..) it's stupid reasonning. It's slandering a valid political view.

I mean.. tell me, what is "your" view of the political life that should exist in America? An electoral contest between Conservative and... Conservative?

You know that the Democrat party in the U.S.A. would be considered strongly conservative in a LOT of countries?

so says cikomyr, master of the half-truth.

Yes, it is true that many atrocities were committed against the Native Americans in the United States by our government. It is also true that our history, while bloody, is no more or less so than that of the majority of other nations.

Now, as to the genocidal destruction of the Native American civilizations, we came upon a continent full of people that had been destroying themselves through war and tribal infighting for centuries. Not one civilization was at its apex when colonization of the continent began. While we performed several atrocities, the conflicts between the tribes did more to destroy the Native American than the white man ever did.

But it's nice to stand on a pedestal of moral superiority, isn't it?

Really?...Far as I know they were pretty civil as long as everyone stayed in their own general territory. Some went as far to form their own confederacy. The Haudenosaunee(or Iroquois) for instance were composed of 6 nations in upstate New York. Of course there was fighting, there's always fighting when you get more than one uniform belief structure going. I don't think they were contributing to their own demise...seeing as how they haven't already killed everyone before the Europeans came. There were hundreds of tribes clustered quite closely together, and they weren't at war all the time.

I don't think a planned Euro-American genocide compares with tribal warfare in the least. Warfare implies that people are actually fighting...whereas genocide is a systematic extermination- men, women, and children.

~Zoo

zoo,

You need to read history BEYOND what is taught in the schools!

Okay, will do. You got a link or a book recommendation?

~Zoo

How profoundly ignorant. Where were the concentration camps to exterminate them?

We still have native Americans in the United States. There are a lot more native Americans in the United States than there are, say, Jews in Poland or native Tasmanians in Australia.

Can you provide me with the secret pass code to get ahold of the top secret Euro-American genocide plan so I can see how they carried it out?

Massacres don't seem like genocide to you? Forcefully moving them to tiny plots of land in the west is pretty similar to a concentration camp if you ask me. Not to mention the largest deployment of our military since the Civil War went out west to "watch over" them and arm the white settlers in the area.

~Zoo

Well, native americans were massacred by Spanish, Portuguese, Enlgish, French & American governement. I do not layed the blame solely on the USA - how typical of you to react life this -. But simply because you were one of the last - but most efficient - doesn't make it any less right.



There are a lot more alive Jews than there are Native American, a fact that wasn't true before 1492.

Simply constant destroying of their food source, attack from the army, and constant attack from your army was well ennough. You don't need concentration camps to exterminate a kin. Simply killing them slowly, forcing them to move, preventing them from access to their food source, was more than ennough.

The genocide wasn't part of a "final solution" operation, but simply harassing policies that were simply extremely unfair to the indians. Europeans (and americans) wanted land, they moved there, claiming rights they pulled out of their hats, and killed the natives if they didn't complied - or, my gosh, defended themselves! -

Now, I want to know how you conservative are freaking out about 1 line I said, instead of talking about the topic?

And yet the title of this blog is.. "What liberals fear" Not what 'some liberals fear'

And if I had written a blog on Irish food, I might have called it "What the Irish eat". And despite the fact that not all Irish eat the food in question, I would not have called it "What some Irish eath". Deal with it.

You want a 1-culture world, where everybody play baseball/football (not likely, loool), are against abortion, and have a gun-worshiping culture?

Stop putting words in my mouth. I probably forgot to add point 7: "Quotes rather than re-interpretation of statements". My bad.

There are a lot more alive Jews than there are Native American, a fact that wasn't true before 1492. Simply constant destroying of their food source, attack from the army, and constant attack from your army was well ennough. You don't need concentration camps to exterminate a kin. Simply killing them slowly, forcing them to move, preventing them from access to their food source, was more than ennough.

Genocide implies an intent. Many Indians died because of European diseases. Those were not brought over to kill people. Neither Europeans nor Indians understood how bacteria and viruses work at the time. Can you tell me how many Indians there were before 1942 and now? Let's concentrate on North-America since this is about Anglo-American culture. We can talk about the Spanish crimes in South America later.

I've never understood quite how Christians reconcile Jesus' example with warlike ways and genocide either, particularly nowadays when they can actually read.

You can stop wondering, I will tell you the answer. They don't. Christians do not support warlike ways nor do they support genocide, so the question of reconciling either with Jesus' example never came up for them. As for the reading, I fear Christianity was a major reason for why Europeans learned reading. Your dream of illiterate stupid Christians is not based on reality, my young friend.

Saying that all people of a particular political affiliation are afraid of Christianity and Judaism is just a little offensive thank you very much.

The Irish food example wasn't good enough, I take it. Anyway, since I made it clear that the list was NOT about all liberals, I will henceforth ignore the allegation that it was. It is possible to force miscommunication, I guess. Why is it offensive?