If you are not a Native American, you're an 'Anchor Baby' (the decendent of an illegal alien)!

reply to post by JaxonRoberts


I haven't attacked anyone, nice to play the pity card though. I also haven't shouted my views. It seems anyone who disagrees with your misplaced white guilt is a racist........however trolling? This entire thread was a star and flag attempt in my opinion, and yet you choose to accuse others of the very actions you yourself commit? Wow, I mean wow, could you use a few more adjectives to describe me, I think you missed a few? Go ahead and get the last word, but yes, I'd be happy to discuss this with you on any forum, however, instead of uselessly spitting out historical regurgated data as an excuse for these crimes to be commited, perhaps you could use facts this time.

Better yet, lets just do it here........you're only seem to be interested in points anyway. Why gop somewhere else, I think here will suffice. Or is there perhaps another reason for wanting it to not happen in the open as it were?

reply to post by adifferentbreed


Debate forum is VERY open, neither one of us gets the 'points', and there are rules of debate. No name calling, no strawmen, just factual debate... Only one reason to not want to take it there, weakness... I willing, are you???

Originally posted by Night Star
reply to post by Xtrozero

 

The illegals are NOT just taking the jobs that Americans don't want! I worked with illegals and they made well over the minimum wage. Of course the legal citizens made even more, hence the hiring of more and more illegals. Of course more and more hard working Americans were turned away. And they do NOT do better quality work! They are no different than anyone else.

Illegals are driving wages down. More companies require more hours yet the wage stays the same. Or they have one person doing the work of two. Companies that hire illegals over an American citizen should be punished by law. We need money to survive. It isn't about new cars and luxeries.

I'm in agreement that we need to get control of our illegal population, and so my argument is not about them. Illegals hurt us in more ways, than as you say, taking jobs.

Where Mexicans do better work is in the lower paying or undesirable jobs, and so I'm not talking about a higher paying skilled labor type work.

Heavy fines for companies hiring illegals are a good place to start, but then that is a slippery slope for then that little restaurant that has a few as dishwashers would be subjected to the same fines that could run them out of business. Maybe there is a happy middle though.

One question, how does an illegal get hired as an airport screener, don't they have background investigations done?

Originally posted by masqua

In the case of the USA, there is a sizable contingent of indigenous people who are, to put it mildly, unhappy with the present state of affairs. The same situation exists in Canada. I don't consider it a successful colonization until all citizens are content with the status quo.

I don't follow your logic. Isn't everyone naturally born in the US and Candia equal under the laws of those countries?

I also find that the use of the term indigenous is used very loosely for many purposes. In the use of Haiti you have defined borders since it is an island, but with the Americas you might be suggesting that a tribal group that migrated from Asia and spent 10,000 years migrating south from Alaska to Chile splintering into other groups as they traveled own the whole continent, and that is rather vague when one talks of land ownership. When we do talk of landownership around the world, and as far back as recorded history can go, has the indigenous EVER been the deciding factor in determining ownership of land anywhere?

Finally, isn’t EVERYONE but the indigenous in the same category? Isn’t everyone today that is Black, brown, white, yellow mixed etc all non-indigenous? Though I’m white, I have zero historical relationship to those from Spain who did so much harm in the Americas, as I’m once again totally removed from the Dutch who did the lion’s share of the slave trade. Maybe the indigenous should sue the Spaniards…

Originally posted by Xtrozero
I don't follow your logic. Isn't everyone naturally born in the US and Candia equal under the laws of those countries?

To follow how Canada developed a relationship with the aboriginal people, one should be aware of the ever-evolving Indian Act. This link is several pages long.

In simple terms, to answer your question... no, in Canada, they are not equal in terms of the law. They are seen as quite seperate and this, in turn, has led to many problems in the relationships between the native communities and their counterparts as represented by minicipal, provincial and federal governments.

America has had its own chequered history. How it all relates to their rights under the Consitution, I'll leave to Americans to figure out.

The fact remains that many indians still do not recognize either the Government of the United States nor the Government of Canada and even in the post-9/11 'tight borders' situation, refuse to give up their rights to unhindered crossings since their extended tribal connections straddle thoe border.

I also find that the use of the term indigenous is used very loosely for many purposes.

It is a generic term, isn't it? What I intend when I type it, is those people who occupy the lands prior to the migration of another people into the same area. Since it is the standard theory that all people migrated out of Africa at some point in pre-history, it can be said that no-one has the right to ownership of anything.

However, those incursions by one group onto the traditional territories of another can lead to some intense situations. Consider the Belgian colonial history of Rwanda and the many conflicts between Hutu's and Tutsis.

In the use of Haiti you have defined borders since it is an island, but with the Americas you might be suggesting that a tribal group that migrated from Asia and spent 10,000 years migrating south from Alaska to Chile splintering into other groups as they traveled own the whole continent, and that is rather vague when one talks of land ownership. When we do talk of landownership around the world, and as far back as recorded history can go, has the indigenous EVER been the deciding factor in determining ownership of land anywhere?

Good points.

I'd have to say no. Traditionally, ownership has gone to the conquerer and the conquered have also traditionally gotten the short end of the stick. The problem with that, though, is that if the conquerers don't practice genocide on those conquered, wiping them off the face of the earth, the usual result is, in the least, a latent hatred carried forward through generations, or, at its worst, open warfare and revolution.

Finally, isn’t EVERYONE but the indigenous in the same category? Isn’t everyone today that is Black, brown, white, yellow mixed etc all non-indigenous? Though I’m white, I have zero historical relationship to those from Spain who did so much harm in the Americas, as I’m once again totally removed from the Dutch who did the lion’s share of the slave trade. Maybe the indigenous should sue the Spaniards…

Don't forget France's involvement in the slave trade either. That is what Haiti was... a 'clearing house' and 'holding pen' for slaves destined to be sold across the Americas. After the slaves rebelled in Haiti, establishing a republic for themselves, they were burdened by reperations paid to France for the loss of the plantations. This is the sole reason they are such a poor nation. For example, their countryside was denuded of trees in order to maintain the payment of that debt.

Today, collective governments are, and will be, paying billions in the rebuilding of the shoddy infrastructure that was in place before the earthquake. Your taxes and mine are providing that rebuilding. My guess is that the remaining 'original debt' will be forgiven, but new debt will be added on, continuing the impoverishment of the western portion of the island and the removal of its natural resources in payment.

On the bolded comment above, all I can say is that, as I was born in Holland, the history of that country's involvement in the slave trade is shameful. In that my extended family has Indonesian roots, I understand why they rebelled against the Dutch colonists. In that I also have family connections to the Boers in South Africa, I am torn over Hollands participation in Apartheit policies and yet hold a grudge against the British use of concentration camps for the sole purpose of holding the wives and children of the Boers fighting in that war. As I have a father who was native American, I feel a kinship with the ongoing confrontation against the governments of Canada and the USA.

Like I said, I consider myself to be all skin colours... white, black, yellow and red; three of them genetically and the fourth assumed through current migration theories. When it gets right down to the nitty gritty of genetics, we're all of black ancestry.

Good post, Xtrozero.

reply to post by masqua


Thanks,

Yes, I do find it all very grey. On one hand I want the Indians to do good, and as most know they are the poorest in America, but living in their world of treaties with the US I’m not sure if that is in their best interest. Yes it does provide separation, but then as I said they seem to have become the poorest as a result of it. With that said though there are no obligations, and if there was some perceived obligations they would be very hard to fulfill in today’s world where there are no open lands. Even with satisfying the Indians there would also always be another group looking to have wrongs fixed. As example, I would bet the civil war moved many boundaries too that should not have been moved as people were wronged, but today, good and bad, lines are drawn, some of those lines were from agreements, some forced, and some were out of war, but lines are drawn and that is the big difference from what it once was.



[edit on 8-2-2010 by Xtrozero]

reply to post by masqua

America has had its own chequered history. How it all relates to their rights under the Consitution, I'll leave to Americans to figure out.

Chequered history? So lets ignore all the massive contributions and greatness of that nation and just focus on the treatment of the Indians..

Since it is the standard theory that all people migrated out of Africa at some point in pre-history, it can be said that no-one has the right to ownership of anything.

No it can't be said that, that would be ridiculous and the world would be constant anarchy. If I build a country, I own it. If I have a gun and say you can't come on this piece of land without my permission, I own it.

Traditionally, ownership has gone to the conquerer and the conquered have also traditionally gotten the short end of the stick. The problem with that, though, is that if the conquerers don't practice genocide on those conquered, wiping them off the face of the earth, the usual result is, in the least, a latent hatred carried forward through generations, or, at its worst, open warfare and revolution.

Of course ownership goes to the conqueror and not the conquered. By definition. Its not just 'tradition'.

Here once again you obviously show you have something against territorial expansion by humans. As you imply the conquerors must massacre everyone on the land to make it successful.

England has been invaded many times, but there is no latent hatred of britons for the saxons, or the Normans. 'Wiping them off the face of the earth' You use such emotive language. This is not a newspaper article.

Do you have a belief that world history was a land scramble out of Africa, followed by invasions that only end in genocide or ultimately rebellions?

In reality everywhere has been invaded by multiple different peoples, many times leading to integration, and the world we live in today. It seems you have a serious problem with invasions as a nartural part of a territorial species's history.

Don't forget France's involvement in the slave trade either. That is what Haiti was... a 'clearing house' and 'holding pen' for slaves destined to be sold across the Americas. After the slaves rebelled in Haiti, establishing a republic for themselves, they were burdened by reperations paid to France for the loss of the plantations. This is the sole reason they are such a poor nation. For example, their countryside was denuded of trees in order to maintain the payment of that debt.

Here we go again with the white guilt history. And the attempts to assign one single reason to a problem which is of course incredibly complex.

Don't make me go into slavery again. I get so sick of this.

Slavery is practised by all nations at some times. You native americans had slaves, EVERYONE DID. ok? Realise it. Whites abolish slavery, otherwise it would be widespread still. Whites have been slaves. The black Africans sold eachother into slavery. Get over slavery seriously, you don't comprehend it as a facet of all cultures throughout history, you instead assign it as the exclusive practice of Europeans.

After the slaves rebelled as we spoke, they had a country with everything there for them. They had a ready built country. A prosperous nation all set up and ready to go. And you say oh blame it on the whites, they put a debt on the Haitians and thats the only reason it isn't a first world power today.

Do you not see your own blame it on the whites attitude?

On the bolded comment above, all I can say is that, as I was born in Holland, the history of that country's involvement in the slave trade is shameful.

See as I said above about slavery. So every country in the world's slave history is shameful? I would say slavery is a shameful practice, of course, but you need to realise times were different then, and EVERYONE has done it, so get off your high horse telling Europeans nation to be ashamed.

In that my extended family has Indonesian roots, I understand why they rebelled against the Dutch colonists. In that I also have family connections to the Boers in South Africa, I am torn over Hollands participation in Apartheit policies and yet hold a grudge against the British use of concentration camps for the sole purpose of holding the wives and children of the Boers fighting in that war. As I have a father who was native American, I feel a kinship with the ongoing confrontation against the governments of Canada and the USA.

You need to get over the past and realise that war, killing, slavery and genocide are part of the history of this world. You need to stop holding grudges and move on. You need to educate yourself and let go of your perceived suffered injustices, and blaming whites for whatever you feel is wrong with the world.

This is an anti-white hate thread started by a Native American. If I start a thread saying similar things about non-whites, I am quite sure I will not get 80 flags, I am quite sure it would be shut down.

How about you spend some time looking at what positive things white people have done. I bet if you spent 10percent of the time you spend looking at the negative things, you may find yourself having a slightly different world view.


PS. I noticed you still have not changed your signature which I showed you was incorrect in my last post.

[edit on 8-2-2010 by asd10]

Originally posted by Xtrozero
As example, I would bet the civil war moved many boundaries too that should not have been moved as people were wronged, but today, good and bad, lines are drawn, some of those lines were from agreements, some forced, and some were out of war, but lines are drawn and that is the big difference from what it once was.

You're so right.

Another example of troubles rising out of treaties, etc., were the borderlines drawn around the world after WWI, the 'Great War'. The six months that changed to world happened in Paris, 1919 and out of that we have seen 90 years of ethnic and nationalistic struggles, perhaps even causing WWII. It certainly did provide the momentum for the Cold War and the continued struggle in the Caucases.

Top dog politians of victorious wars sit down and re-define the borders of their lesser allies (and, of course, the defeated) with little attention to minor details, like ethnic origins. This is how Germans or Russians wound up being citizens of Hungary or Poland, for instance (and vice versa). Too much familial mixing over the centuries coupled with having invested in building enterprise, these people will harbour resentment over being cut off from their nationality through the generations (until something gives).

There's just no end to it. Look at the mess the Middle East is in after the carving up they went through post WWII.

From the OP:

We took this country away from the proud peoples who inhabited it for thousands of years, with nothing but respect for the land, and within just a few hundred years have turned it into a giant garbage heap, while relegating the heavily culled native population to small, crappy 'reservations', which were placed in areas that we didn't want.

yup... same old, same old.




[edit on 8/2/10 by masqua]

Originally posted by asd10
I tire of this.

OK. I won't reply to you any longer. It's not like it was helping either of us come to any conclusions anyways.

[edit on 8/2/10 by masqua]

reply to post by masqua

OK. I won't reply to you any longer. It's not like it was helping either of us come to any conclusions anyways.

Nice excuse to end an argument you were losing.

Why bother arguing back when you can just ignore the posts.

Defend your beliefs and your incorrect definitions, or stop espousing them.

reply to post by masqua

From the OP:


We took this country away from the proud peoples who inhabited it for thousands of years, with nothing but respect for the land, and within just a few hundred years have turned it into a giant garbage heap, while relegating the heavily culled native population to small, crappy 'reservations', which were placed in areas that we didn't want.



yup... same old, same old.

The OP starts of as 'we' being the whites, and eventually reveals that he is infact not white, but a quarter native american and very much on their side. So he has pretended to be on one side while fighting the cause for the other side which he truly identifies with.

And YOU who quote his politically correct fantasy rhetoric still. YOU are just as bad.

They couldn't defend their land they lost it. He is Native American and he doesn't like that. That is his situation and he should just come clean with it, instead of pretending to just be speaking out of pure morality.

And for his final point, which, by quoting him you are showing your agreement, he claims USA is a giant garbage heap. Why don't you both leave your computer, your readily available food supplies, your easy lives, and go and live in a tribal soceity, they still exist in Africa. Go and do that if the US is a garbage heap.

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by adifferentbreed

 

just factual debate...

somebody has never read a debate im guessing. . . . Facts are one of the least important parts of winning a competitive debate. . . The trick is to get the judges on your side.

Clever metaphors twisted facts and spin win debates. . . . I know thats hard to accept on a site where the motto is Deny Ignorance, but it is true. It's true in every forum of debate from high school to presidential elections.

Tone and color win debates.

[edit on 8-2-2010 by constantwonder]

reply to post by masqua


If you bothered to look at the history of slavery around the globe, you would see that the Dutch, and the Europeans in general, practiced slavery for much smaller periods of their history, and never as cruelly as most other civilizations.

Just goes to show, you can't please all the people all of the time.

It's not like before the treaty after WW I that we were all living in peace and harmony.

Most often than not, conquered people are failed conquerors.

Conquest is human nature, and it has been regularly demonstrated that if you give them an inch, they will take a mile, if you allow them.

Appeasement only serves to encourage aggression.

Recent history has succeeded in teaching those of us who are paying attention, this lesson once again.

reply to post by asd10


I see you're still wanting to debate the issues brought forward in this thread. Fine, I'm willing. Since I'm not allowed to use the historical record:

For those who can't see it, history is distorted for agendas. Education has an agenda behind it.

Giving that politically correct version of history, and quoting mainstream sources as if we do not expect them to follow your politically correct viewpoints.

I'm then left to answer with the same thing you do... only opinions.


Lets start with the first of your statementS:

Taking other peoples land is part of life as a territorial species. You need land to grow and feed your population. If the other people cant defend their land they lose it QQ.

So THAT's what Hitler was doing! Do you admire him for that noble cause of 'elbow room'? Strangely, 64 years after that struggle, Nazi's are still being brought to trial for their barbarism. I suppose you'd free them of any responsibility (?) since they were only dong what comes natural?

if you build yourself a nice house, and the person next door builds a crack den which falls down, they should be able to live in your house and there is nothing you can do about it.

Nice analogy.

The Aztecs used to sacrifice thousands of their own people everyday

No. They generally sacrificed prisoners of war.

This just sounds like the stuff you have been taught at school, to make you feel guilty about being white, its not healthy and its wrong.

Oh... I guess anything learned at school is also off the table like history and links to websites. Man... the ability to use the tools of education in responding to you are severely limited, aren't they? Makes just about anything questionable. Just out of curiosity, is there ANYTHING besides pure opinion that you'd consider?

I think not.

you need to educate yourself about white history and world history in general

OK, now I'm confused.

just because you use big words and 'lol' to make you seem somewhat above the ones you argue with on an intellectual level, does not make your arguments anymore valid.

Well, I guess words like Eugenics, supercalifragenisticexpealidocious and smileys are out.

whether you like it or not, war and killing is part of history, no matter what race you are.

The race thing rears it's head. Well, you know what I think of 'different races', so that's one dead horse between us. (and, no, I'm not changing my signature)

As far as I am concerned racism is hating people who are of a different race.

Check. Went over that opinion of yours before and mine is different, as you know. I just don't buy seperate 'races' at all.

Like it or not races exist and are different, not just in skin tone but in morphology.

Check. Morphology. I got a big nose, big hands and big feet. What race am I?

Christian whites are responsible for the computer you are typing on and the food in your belly.

Wow! I guess whites are, in your opinion TRULY superior.

Your extensive research into the meaning of race:

Wiktionary-
1.The belief that each race has distinct and intrinsic attributes.
2.The belief that one race is superior to all others.
3.Prejudice or discrimination based upon race.

Oxford Dictionary-
1 the belief that there are characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to each race.
2 discrimination against or antagonism towards other races.

an online dictionary-

1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

Cambridge dictionary-

the belief that people's qualities are influenced by their race and that the members of other races are not as good as the members of your own, or the resulting unfair treatment of members of other races


Merriam-Webster -
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

In the bolded sections above, I see the positive affirmation of my signature. Notice how each one of the definitions is preceded by the word 'belief'? It doesn't say 'fact'anywhere.

It's only an opinion based on a false ideology. I don't buy the idea, but you obviously do. That's fine by me... you can 'believe' whatever you want.

reply to post by masqua


I see you have now got desperate and are resorting to various petty tactics in this discussion.

I see you're still wanting to debate the issues brought forward in this thread. Fine, I'm willing. Since I'm not allowed to use the historical record:

If you are not able to realise that much of mainstream historical accounts are biased to fit the current agendas of the elite. Such as divide and conquer. Namely make non-whites hate whites for perceived injustices etc, as I have explained.

Of course there are good sources out there. Books etc. But not wikipedia or educational resources. As has been stated many times, they all overblow slavery as if no other races did it etc...

So THAT's what Hitler was doing! Do you admire him for that noble cause of 'elbow room'? Strangely, 64 years after that struggle, Nazi's are still being brought to trial for their barbarism. I suppose you'd free them of any responsibility (?) since they were only dong what comes natural?

This is an example of the desperate tactics. The Nazi's barbarism was not the war but the holocaust. War and holocaust are not the same.
Basically that was a cheap shot to try an call me a nazi. Very mature.

if you build yourself a nice house, and the person next door builds a crack den which falls down, they should be able to live in your house and there is nothing you can do about it.



Nice analogy.

This is another of the desperate tactics.
You have deliberately misquoted me and taken it out of context. I was using it to show how a persons view was incorrect.

I was using this as an example of a false analogy, yet you try to hide this by removing the context.
A cheap tactic.

The Aztecs used to sacrifice thousands of their own people everyday



No. They generally sacrificed prisoners of war.

What war produced thousands of POWs every day? Even if that is the truth, that is a soceity in perpetual warfare which kills and eats the POW on a daily basis, in a ritual which is the basis of their soceity.

This website contradicts your view.

'We don't know how many were sacrificed over the years - it's possible that some accounts are exaggerated - but it was probably thousands each year - tens of thousands or more all together. Some estimates claim 20,000 a year.

.....The victim would be painted as a part of the ritual, they would be placed on a slab where their heart would be removed and held up to the sun. The body would be thrown down the stairs of the temple/pyramid.'

and
'Both the empire's own people, and their enemies were sacrificed.'

This is from the site www.aztec-history.com...

I think due to the nature of the site it is likely to be quite reliable.

'Oh... I guess anything learned at school is also off the table like history and links to websites. Man... the ability to use the tools of education in responding to you are severely limited, aren't they? Makes just about anything questionable. Just out of curiosity, is there ANYTHING besides pure opinion that you'd consider? '

Learnt at school? Don't you mean told to you?

I was told much at school which is not true. You are free to use whatever info you want, and you have, but we have shown how it is bias and out of context in the history of the world as a whole.

Check. Went over that opinion of yours before and mine is different, as you know. I just don't buy seperate 'races' at all.

Up to you. Substitute races for people of European/african/asian origin.
Race exists, thats a fact.

Check. Morphology. I got a big nose, big hands and big feet. What race am I?

You would not say the only physical differences in appearances is just skin tone? Races look different and have different physical appearances, surely you accept this?

Christian whites are responsible for the computer you are typing on and the food in your belly.



Wow! I guess whites are, in your opinion TRULY superior.

Am I wrong to say they are respinsible for those things? Do you not live in Canada? Is Canada not a country built by whites?

And no, whites are not superior in my view, but again, I note the attempt to pidgeonhole me as a racial supremacist in order to discredit me.

In the bolded sections above, I see the positive affirmation of my signature. Notice how each one of the definitions is preceded by the word 'belief'? It doesn't say 'fact'anywhere.

It's only an opinion based on a false ideology. I don't buy the idea, but you obviously do. That's fine by me... you can 'believe' whatever you want.

You obviously can't decipher language well then.
You definition is that to simply talk about race, or mention race, or even believe in race is racist.

the definitions I show, state that it is a belief that their are different intrinsic qualities or superiority etc.

So re-read the definitions, and finally accept they do not match yours.

It's only an opinion based on a false ideology. I don't buy the idea, but you obviously do. That's fine by me... you can 'believe' whatever you want.

And here you indirectly call me a racist.

Do you have any other baseless accusations to throw at me in the hope I will give up and let you preach your white-guilt speeches?








[edit on 8-2-2010 by asd10]

Originally posted by asd10
I see you have now got desperate and are resorting to various petty tactics in this discussion.

Tactics? I'm giving my opinion on your statements in the thread.

If you are not able to realise that much of mainstream historical accounts are biased to fit the current agendas of the elite.

Yes, I understand that history is written by the victorious. This is why it's important to also read the accounts of the defeated. After that, we are left to decipher our own opinions on the truth of what really happened.

Of course there are good sources out there. Books etc. But not wikipedia or educational resources. As has been stated many times, they all overblow slavery as if no other races did it etc...

Although I disagree with the statement that "...races did it", I agree that people around the world and in all periods of our history DID enslave. I'd say that it would be extremely rare to find only one example of a civilization that didn't practice slavery. Before you point your finger at America today and tell me there's no slavery, don't, because while slavery is no longer legal in the USofA, it is still practiced illegally, as it is in many other supposedly civilized western countries.

The Nazi's barbarism was not the war but the holocaust. War and holocaust are not the same.
Basically that was a cheap shot to try an call me a nazi. Very mature.

You stated that it is OK for one nation to invade another if they needed 'elbow room', which was Hitlers primary objective. I never mentioned the holocaust, you just did. Now, about the barbarian nature of the Nazis and their attack on Europe; I'm of the OPINION that it was a barbarous attack. The actions of their soldiers on the populations of the conquered countries was brutal and callous, having no regard for civilians whatsoever. I'm a child of that conflict since I was born in Holland in 1946. My knowledge of the German conduct during that war has been formed by two main sources... family history and history in literature.

Perhaps it would be best if we don't discuss whether Germany had a right to invade Holland or not. It might get a little angry.

You have deliberately misquoted me and taken it out of context. I was using it to show how a persons view was incorrect.

OK, Here's more context, first the quote you were answering:

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
So if someone invades your house and does a bad job of cleaning it and then I invade your house and do a good job of renovating and cleaning that makes me the person who should be allowed to keep the house?

And then your reply:

You missed the mark with that house analogy. A more accurate one would be that if you build yourself a nice house, and the person next door builds a crack den which falls down, they should be able to live in your house and there is nothing you can do about it.

I don't 'believe' I missed anything. With your previously stated opinion that it is perfectly fine to invade another country if you need the 'elbow room', I 'believe' your analogy is not false at all, but simply one you would applaud.




On the Aztecs, I said: "No. They generally sacrificed prisoners of war."

Note the word 'generally'

From your link:

Both the empire's own people, and their enemies were sacrificed. The warriors were often involved in a special ritual war called a xochiyaoyotl (or flower war/flowery war). The object was not to gain territory or kill the enemy, but to capture them as food for the gods. Both sides of the battle were required to fight, and they usually were willing participants. The people would be captured instead of killed, and then sacrificed.

They fought enemies and they fought each other. In both cases, the object was to defeat, not kill, and the losers got sacrificed. Those kinds of sports reminds me of Rome's Colliseum and the Gladiators. Killing for sport was a favourite pastime for lots of people throughout history, even 'whites'.

What war produced thousands of POWs every day? Even if that is the truth, that is a soceity in perpetual warfare which kills and eats the POW on a daily basis, in a ritual which is the basis of their soceity.

You need to read your links before you post and comment on them.

From your link:

The Aztecs had 18 months in one cycle, and for each of the 18 months there was ritual sacrifice. The victim would be painted as a part of the ritual, they would be placed on a slab where their heart would be removed and held up to the sun. The body would be thrown down the stairs of the temple/pyramid.

They were short months, for sure, but 18 doesn't equal 365.

Learnt at school? Don't you mean told to you?

No... I actually looked further and made my own opinions during and after school was done. It's a habit of mine never to take other people's opinions as fact. You might have noticed by now.

. Substitute races for people of European/african/asian origin.
Race exists, thats a fact.

Prove that fact. It's a 'belief' by the dictionary examples you yourself provided in this thread..

You would not say the only physical differences in appearances is just skin tone? Races look different and have different physical appearances, surely you accept this?

Yes, I agree. There are physiological differences between people the world over. They are the result of diet and geological location. They are certainly NOT seperate races of mankind.

Am I wrong to say they are respinsible for those things? Do you not live in Canada? Is Canada not a country built by whites?

And no, whites are not superior in my view, but again, I note the attempt to pidgeonhole me as a racial supremacist in order to discredit me.

So... you're still saying that Canada was built by 'white skinned' people only? I suppose no Chinese nor native Americans had a hand in it (by your estimation). The Metis, of course, had no play in Canadian history. You've never heard of the Voyageurs, I take it.

:shk:

Well... that's OK. You have a right to that 'notion', I suppose. Not like I'd ever change your mind with anything I'd ever say.

You obviously can't decipher language well then.
You definition is that to simply talk about race, or mention race, or even believe in race is racist.

That's right! That's what I 'believe'... based on these lines from the Canadian Encyclopdedia:

"Race" first appeared in the English language around the 17th century. North Americans began to use the term in their scientific writings by the late 18th century. Racism was developed and popularized by scientists in the 19th century, as they were regarded as purveyors of truth. At the time this ideology also explained political and economic conflicts in various parts of the world and legitimized the dominant role of British capitalism in the world economic system. Racism is universal and is evident in many different ethno-racial groups. It is not limited to white groups.
By the mid-19th century, there was general agreement that the worlds population could be divided into a variety of races: groups of people who shared similar phenotypical attributes, eg, skin colour, hair texture. This process of race categorization is referred to as racialization and is necessary for the emergence of racism as an ideology.

www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com...

But you'll likely say it's leftist liberal pagan nonsense written by non-whites living in Toronto. Maybe so... maybe not. Anyways, it forms my opinion.

What forms yours?

the definitions I show, state that it is a belief that their are different intrinsic qualities or superiority etc.

Exactly... a 'belief', not a 'fact', which is what it seems you think it is.

So re-read the definitions, and finally accept they do not match yours.

No, I don't accept seperate races of mankind existing anywhere in the world today and I don't share your 'belief' that they do anymore than I believe in a Flying Spaghetti Monster.

by me
It's only an opinion based on a false ideology. I don't buy the idea, but you obviously do. That's fine by me... you can 'believe' whatever you want.

Your response:

And here you indirectly call me a racist.

You promote the ideology of seperate races within humanity, don't you?

Do you have any other baseless accusations to throw at me in the hope I will give up and let you preach your white-guilt speeches?

Really...

BTW... have you decided on my 'race' yet or am I too much of a mongrel?

"lol"

Originally posted by 4ortunate1
Not really because the USA as a nation did not exist back then and the native Americans did not have a policy regarding Anchor babies.

FYI - Native American Policy was...sure, you can stay for while and we will bring you food, show you how to survive etc. just don't do anything crazy like attack us and try to take our land.

I sometimes wonder what a Native American civilization would look like if they were permitted to evolve as nation.

Originally posted by maybereal11

I sometimes wonder what a Native American civilization would look like if they were permitted to evolve as nation.

I would bet most of it would look like the poorer parts of India, Mexico, Africa etc. Low tech, high mortality rates, and at some point over population… people will be people…

reply to post by maybereal11


It would be the same as it was then obviously. Why would it change? It hadn't changed for hunders/thousands of years.