RE: Carter, his book, Palestine, the American problem (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

JohnWarren -> RE: Carter, his book, Palestine, the American problem (12/29/2006 6:30:37 AM)

The sad thing is the "multiculturalism" isn't really "multi."  It often promotes certain cultures and groups at the expense of others.

"If language is not correct, that which is said is not understood. If that which is said is not understood, what ought to be done is not done. If what should be done is not done, morals and art deteriorate. If morals and art deteriorate, justice goes astray. If justice goes astray, the people stand in confusion. Therefore, there must be no arbitrariness in what is said."
--CONFUCIUS



sleazy -> RE: Carter, his book, Palestine, the American problem (12/29/2006 6:51:48 AM)

Hmmm, so many replies, where do I start [:)]

I currently live in the east end of London, I look out my window and of 7 houses, only 2 contain people I would place in the "white british" category, of course one of those houses is mine, and I share this hovel, with eastern europeans, so of a couple of dozen folks, there are 5 white british, 4 black and the remainder polish/latvian/lithuainian. Many are freshly arrived, fully half the cars parked outside wear foriegn tags. One local school is predominantly white, the next closest appears to be mainly asian, then black, with white of any extraction an almost invisible minority. I used to live in the Leeds/Bradford area and there at the time (5 or so years ago) the ratios were fast approaching something approaching 40% asian, 10% black 50% white, this was about the same time that Leicester officially becam the first UK district to have a white minority.

I find it intersting to see the perspective of Meatcleaver seeing Paxman as being good at his job whilst admitting it is contrived both reflects and contradicts the quoted reported report from Firmhand. I agree in full with the report, not just as regards it anti-americanism, but its core values and ethics in general. For those readers outside the UK, it was recently reported that the BBC was considering (in the interests of impartiallity) offering as much air time to Al Queda to voice its views as it was prepared to offer the UK government on subjects where they had opposing views.

Am I alone in seeing some irony that on the one hand the BBC is quite firmly in the pocket of our pro-american government, but on the other so anti-american. Guess they forgot Chamberlains lesson that appeasment dont always work.

Guess I should now go back to the begining of the thread, read what was initially said about Carter and his book and comment suitably :)



seeksfemslave -> RE: Carter, his book, Palestine, the American problem (12/29/2006 7:22:46 AM)

Sleazy my son to quote Paxman, who in my opinion is the most disgraceful political commentator/interviewer....EVAH ,
the BBC is consistantly Anti American and foaming at the mouth anti Blair, especially since that report claiming that the BBC had broadcast untruths over the reasons behind Iraq invasion.

The BBC consistantly injects its reporters opinions in its News reports, I bet Jimmy Carter or Amy wouldnt like that !!
Look at their sympathetic reporting on the suicide of that scientist, forget his name, a proven liar and self promoting fantasist.
I bet Jimmy Carter wouldn't like that either.



sleazy -> RE: Carter, his book, Palestine, the American problem (12/29/2006 8:33:22 AM)

A self-promoter on the BBC, surely such a travesty has never occured?!?!?!?

Now resuming normal service with tounge removed from cheek.

A lot of my day is spent with half an eye on 24 hour news channels and various ticker feeds, I treat them all pretty much the same, I extract all the basic relevant facts and base everything afterwards on what I deem facts necessary to perform my job. As an example with Al Jazeerah on one monitor and a western network on another I have can extract the facts I need, namely a car bomb in Bagdahd, the analysis of commentators and pundits is of no interest. I often place more emphasis on flash reports straight from Reuters or AP, that may be missing a lot of details than on later reports. As in that old cop show, its just the facts ma'am, I have to act on my opinion, I would never ever base a professional judgement on the opinion of stranger no matter how long they had been dragging a camera crew around Thingistan. I will freely admit that if said reporter has shown consistency in their opinions (right or wrong) I may use them to weight my own choice.

I show little interest in any current affairs/interview type programming as I know all that I will get is somebody spouting the current party line on whatever the issue of the day is. When at home my sole source of news is hearsay from friends on messenger services as I would much rather the world just got lost and left me alone when I get in my little abode :)

What really brought home the way the media handle stories and cover real-time events was brought home on an emotional level to match my pretty good intellectual detatchment by watching coverage of the 7/7 bombings on CNN whilst sat in Florida. The conjecture, inferences and downright untruths (whether deliberate, poor choice of called in "expert" or error due to sloppy research I shall leave out of this, but in this constant data age all are inexcusable) had my partner wondering why I, someone usually capable of keeping my peace and analysing data, had become so outraged as to actually swear at the TV. Whatever I read or watch I expect bias of some sort as everybody has their own agenda, the trick is figuring out what the bias is and noticing when the wind changes.



meatcleaver -> RE: Carter, his book, Palestine, the American problem (12/29/2006 8:37:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy

For those readers outside the UK, it was recently reported that the BBC was considering (in the interests of impartiallity) offering as much air time to Al Queda to voice its views as it was prepared to offer the UK government on subjects where they had opposing views.



Do you watch Newsnight sleazy? Offering Al Queda as much time as the British government is offering no time. When was the last time you saw a government nominated spokesman discussing anything of significance on Newsnight or any other programme come to that. The Labour government refuses to put itself up for scrutiny in the media and is simply happy to deny anything it doesn't like, therefore never having its policies tested in the media.



meatcleaver -> RE: Carter, his book, Palestine, the American problem (12/29/2006 8:44:31 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

Sleazy my son to quote Paxman, who in my opinion is the most disgraceful political commentator/interviewer....EVAH ,
the BBC is consistantly Anti American and foaming at the mouth anti Blair, especially since that report claiming that the BBC had broadcast untruths over the reasons behind Iraq invasion.

The BBC consistantly injects its reporters opinions in its News reports, I bet Jimmy Carter or Amy wouldnt like that !!
Look at their sympathetic reporting on the suicide of that scientist, forget his name, a proven liar and self promoting fantasist.
I bet Jimmy Carter wouldn't like that either.


I heard that report and it as far been proved it was a lie and is probably the truth as civil servants have since claim the 'dossier' was sexed up which is what the BBC report said in the first place. In fact, it is more or less accepted by everyone without a vested interest that the government did lie, that they did pressure the security agencies to sex the document up for the sole purpose of getting involved in an illegal war. I don't see anything anti-American in the BBC exposing government lies because the government wants to start an illegal war with the US.

A war even BLAIR now says WAS A MISTAKE.

Actually I don't think it was a mistake. I think it was a CRIME!



seeksfemslave -> RE: Carter, his book, Palestine, the American problem (12/29/2006 1:13:25 PM)

Since the UK intervention in what led to the 2nd World War and ultimately be on the winning side in removing  a psychotic homicidal tyrant, no I dont mean Saddam,  but ended up flat broke and with Poland under Russian control ,presumably that also was a mistake ?
The two situations are entirely analagous in my opinion. I mean the interventions. By the way, Saddam did have expansionist ambitions, what about Kuwait ? Didn't he see himself a  Caliph or supreme leader of all the Middle East ?

I bet Jimmy Carter appreciates that !



NorthernGent -> RE: Carter, his book, Palestine, the American problem (12/29/2006 4:12:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sleazy

(there are some places where whites are fast becoming the minority)

Apparently, Birmingham will become the first city in Europe with a non-white majority by 2020. I'm not aware of similar places. Where else are you thinking of?

As for deference to authority, that has nothing to do with previous wars (most euro states were dragged into these wars as a matter of self defence, some of the others were fought by americans too - take Vietnam as an example),

A grand statement but not true. There are threads examining this very statement and examples of self-defence are thin on the ground.

The welfare state has resulted in a "screw you, something for nothing" mindset that leaves no respect for authourity, people or property, and I include self-respect in that too.

How have you arrived at this conclusion then?

Here now in england there is being a bit of a pro-patriotism backlash, but to admit to being a patriot is a baaaad thing, being a patriot automatically makes you a thug, a racist, intolerant, soccer fan in many eyes.

I don't see this. I see a growth in the popularity of St George's Day. Only now are the English developing a sense of identity. If you want to wave a flag around then that's your call, your life. It's not for me but to each their own.

It is better socially and professionally to admit to being a homosexual than to admit to being a patriot with a respect for yourself, others and authourity.

Hmmmm, are you saying only patriots have respect for themselves and others? If so, this is a leap in faith if ever there was one.

We may be integrated further up the social scale, but at the bottom it more a case of being forced together and having no choice but to interact.

Possibly, there a lot of pissed off people but they tend to be in areas of high unemployment, poverty, poor housing etc. People are lashing out, race/culture is not the issue - the issue is social deprivation. I live in Manchester and people get on fine - we have a large asian community and genuinely I haven't heard/read of problems in Manchester.




Dtesmoac -> RE: Carter, his book, Palestine, the American problem (12/29/2006 5:48:04 PM)

Firm - the fact that the report questioning the impartiality of the BBC comes from the BBC should perhaps tell you something, combined with the posts by everyone else complaining that the BBC is biased to the oposing view of the one they favour -MC, sleazy etc, could be considered as substantiating my point. If all political views claim you are biased towards their oponents then perhaps you are presenting many view points. Of course the old Beeb is far from perfect but perhaps less obviously imperfect than some other news organisations.








yourtoy50 -> RE: Carter, his book, Palestine, the American problem (12/29/2006 5:58:18 PM)

"Guess they forgot Chamberlains lesson that appeasment dont always work. "

Exactly the kind of glib, uniformed comment that could easily have spilled from any number of ministers' lips at the start of the Iraq war. Appeasement was first and foremost a PR strategy for rearmament and as such worked very well.

*Grumbles about the decline of society and goes back to wanking...*



Dtesmoac -> RE: Carter, his book, Palestine, the American problem (12/29/2006 6:28:24 PM)

Firm
Still reading through the jacksonian link - siome interesting thoughts but also some old tosh (snooty British word for trash!!) in there too. I'm also not yet an expert on the 1812 war but working on it and have found two very different versons of the New Orleans Battle and importance - both written by American scholars - and I'm yet to be convinced by eiother. But a few comments:



Thinking, therefore, that America is just like any other European country is misleading and dangerous (and not to the US, either).

Just as many Americans are accused by Europeans of being provincial, uncultured and crude, many Europeans do not realize that they have their own provincial out-look, their own uncultured side, and their own crude assumption of superiority.

The problem is that while Americans have been told that we are "a poor reflection of European culture and thought" for centuries, and had to come to terms with what that meant, many Europeans - until recently - haven't had the drive or the impetus to do the same soul-searching. Perhaps in the past as in the US in the present there was no questioning of national mythology as an example "Britain won the battle of Waterloo" - obviously incorrect, France lost the battle Britain, Holland and Prussia gained from it..... However 20th Century has forced Europeans to questions every aspect of their nations mythology and also values. The US appears not to have gone through this process, perhaps understandable as a young nation and clearly THE WINNER of the 20th Century it is not going to closely examine itself until it has cause to do so.

It tends to make them come across to Americans as smug and self-righteous, lecturing us as "our betters".  I submit that it would pay Europeans dividends to assume that everything they think they know about America is wrong, and start their search for understanding from scratch. I agree and perhaps spending time in the country whilst working in multiple countries globally allows me to do this. Of course I had a preconceived perception of the US, I have worked on and off here for 5 years, however living in the "culture" for an extended period provides additional insight. Sgnificantly reading and listening to issues presented from a US perspecive provides insight on the topic but also to the underliying beliefs and limits of the presenter.  



"The Jacksonian Tradition".  The link takes you to the article, and while long, I think you'll find it relatively easy to read, and believe it will give you a different outlook on a lot of your beliefs about Americans. 19 pages long and interesting so far !!!! - love the gloss over of the US killed over twice as many civilians in the last few months of the war than they lost throughout the war....... Attlia probably had a similar outlook.. (ok anoher cheap shot, stick you toungue in your cheek when you read that bit)

It ain't all pretty, I'll admit, but it strikes to the core of my own personal observations and thoughts over my lifetime about "what America is all about". Would it be fair to sum up part of the "honor code" as an American life is worth far more than any other life?

Jacksonian chairs of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee are the despair of high-minded people everywhere, as they hold up adhesion to the Kyoto Protocol, starve the UN and the IMF, cut foreign aid, and ban the use of U.S. funds for population control programs abroad. American individualism taken to the extreme and translatable as we don't give a shit about you unless it is in our interests and you do it our way.

 without Jacksonians, the United States would be a much weaker power. This assumes that power is only about the projection of coercive will to accomplish your own aims at the expence of others rather than the possibility of gaining your own requirements whilst others also gain.


to be continued!!!!
...



Dtesmoac -> RE: Carter, his book, Palestine, the American problem (12/30/2006 6:41:53 AM)

FirmhandKY

A few years ago, a social scientist by the name of Walter Russell Mead wrote an article titled "The Jacksonian Tradition".  The link takes you to the article, and while long, I think you'll find it relatively easy to read, and believe it will give you a different outlook on a lot of your beliefs about Americans.

It ain't all pretty, I'll admit, but it strikes to the core of my own personal observations and thoughts over my lifetime about "what America is all about".

Read through the article and found the reference to other traditions interesting Wilsonian, Jeffersonian etc - all new concepts to me, and helps demonstrate that there are multi level views etc within the US and that Bush is not the only arcitypal American!!.
On the Jacksonian Tradition I have to agree that it is a viewpoint of the world widely held and displayed by many Americans (certainly in the Mid West) but at this point I think my European perspective kicks in and the article simply exlains how a Mythology has been created, how it is believed unquestioningly by a large proportion of the population and results in the world perspective of US policy as isolationist, ignorant etc, etc. 
To sum up - for a Jacksonian, the only thing that is important is me, if you think like me then you are almost as important, if you think differently to me and could be a threat, I think you could be a threat, or there is benefit to me in fighting you or taking from you, I have every right to use disproportionate force to achieve anything I want.
 
The fact that other societies have laws, rules, codes of honour etc is irrelevent, as only those things that I believe are important, are in fact worth anything and therefore you must play only by my rules provided of course that we ensure item 1 (the only thing that is important is me) is kept to the foremost.
 
I think your analysis of the Jacksonian influenceon the US is good and has actually helped me to realise why certain things are so alien. I can even now put the habit many Americans have of not even looking behind them when they go through a door to see if someone else is comming through into context. The only important thing is my right to use this door and other individuals must be given the individual freedom to act independently and open the door themselves. Of course in other countries holding the door open for someone pushing a push chair is just common good manners, in the US it becomes a statement of political belief. For the minority who do check behind them and hold the door for the next person it is a statement of "leftist politics" for the majority i.e. greater than 51% it comes back to the Jacksonian tradition.  
 
On a more serious note - for the Europeans it took two substantial bashing sessions to realise that mythology and history are two different things and that they should be learnt from, what will it tke for the US to apply the same?
 
In the interest of fare and balanced I have to point out that failure to hold doors open is a pet hate of mine and the British and other nationalities are not 100% good at it but the Americans are by far the worst.... and I clearly see evidence in the US of non Jacksonian Tradition in the mid west and US, ........but to a lesser extent.



luckydog1 -> RE: Carter, his book, Palestine, the American problem (12/30/2006 2:18:01 PM)

 without Jacksonians, the United States would be a much weaker power. This assumes that power is only about the projection of coercive will to accomplish your own aims at the expence of others rather than the possibility of gaining your own requirements whilst others also gain.

Is that a description of helping to stop Hitler, and keeping Western Europe free from the USSR?  Imagine a Polish De Gualle deciding to not contribute to the Warsaw Pact, Actually Hungary and Chzech tried and tanks rolled in.

On a more serious note - for the Europeans it took two substantial bashing sessions to realise that mythology and history are two different things and that they should be learnt from, what will it tke for the US to apply the same?
 
  To me this seems like Europeon mythology.  Only the part of Europe that was and still is occupied by the USA, is so nice and united.  Look at the Balkans or the Baltics. It is infact obvious that changes did not occur evenly accross Europe, as they would if it was a result of the people learning from the past or discarding the Myths.  The parts of Europe that were occupied by different powers developed differently.  This is an undeniable fact.  Western Europeons hate to admit this, also a fact.  Its a myth they have to cling to. 

It ain't all pretty, I'll admit, but it strikes to the core of my own personal observations and thoughts over my lifetime about "what America is all about". Would it be fair to sum up part of the "honor code" as an American life is worth far more than any other life?

All the Europeon nations pay a lot of money for luxury and benefits for its citizens( Health Care and Welfare)  while millions starve around the world, often in nations that were looted by the Europeons.  Is this not a decision that Europeon luxury(not Europeon lives) is more important that the lives of 3rd worlders?  I do not see how you can cast stones here. 



meatcleaver -> RE: Carter, his book, Palestine, the American problem (12/30/2006 2:45:12 PM)

I don't think anyone is saying Europe is better than the US but that two devastating wars (though really it was one) on our soil has caused us to reflect.

Europe was going to be the battle ground for WWIII so don't expect us to feel grateful that USSR and the USA was in a stand off. Both parties were ideologically driven and we were pretty impotent to do anything about it. Now the USSR has gone and influence by the USA is diminishing in Europe, Europe is eventually coming together.

Europeans pay less for Healthcare than the USA because they have more efficient systems that cover all their population. In general even European social security systems are more efficient than the American system because they are less bureaucratic because they accept a certain amount of corruption but see it as a price that has to pay so no one falls through the net but money is saved by not needing the bureaucracy to police the system with expensive civil servants. (this does vary from country to country)

But we are as guilty as anyone of looting the world. Europeans give more per capita in aid (though my guess that aid is wasted) Both the US and Europe are guilty of protectionism and dumping produce on the third world. Was it Europeans that slaugtered the plains indians or Americans? Was it Europeans or Americans that bought the slaves? There is not much to chose between either. However, it is now the US that is the world superpower and as such it will be judged just as Britain was judged when it was a superpower.



luckydog1 -> RE: Carter, his book, Palestine, the American problem (12/30/2006 3:02:51 PM)

Was it Europeans that slaugtered the plains indians or Americans? It was the Europeons, starting with Spain(and yeah they were in the Plains killing long before there was an America), continuing with the Portuguese, French and British , Dutch, and Russians.  You certainly are not so lame as to pretend that only the slaughter of the Great Plains tribes matters are you?  Or are thier lives worth more to you than a Carib, Mayan, Algonquin or Athabascan life?   Some of those Europeons later became "Americans", some became Canadians or Mexicans, ect, and some tok their stolen gold and went back to Europe.    Was it Europeans or Americans that bought the slaves?  Again it was the Europeons, a minority of  whom later became "Americans".  But the Brits, French , and Spainards hauled more slaves to places that are not part of the USA.

I don't think anyone is saying Europe is better than the US but that two devastating wars (though really it was one) on our soil has caused us to reflect. I realise that this is an important cherished myth to Europeons, but it is simply not born out by the facts.  It depended on who occupied you after ww2, not on Europeon intellectual reflection.  Just compare East and West Germans.



Dtesmoac -> RE: Carter, his book, Palestine, the American problem (12/30/2006 3:20:05 PM)

Luckydog
 
Is that a description of helping to stop Hitler, and keeping Western Europe free from the USSR?  Imagine a Polish De Gualle deciding to not contribute to the Warsaw Pact, Actually Hungary and Chzech tried and tanks rolled in. From the article on Jacksonian Tradition then the inference is that the US would only undertake such action in the interest of the USA, protecting markets, preventing the USSR from having access to resources, open ports to the Atlantic etc..... 


 Only the part of Europe that was and still is occupied by the USA, is so nice and united.  Look at the Balkans or the Baltics. It is infact obvious that changes did not occur evenly accross Europe, as they would if it was a result of the people learning from the past or discarding the Myths.  The parts of Europe that were occupied by different powers developed differently.  This is an undeniable fact.  Western Europeons hate to admit this, also a fact.  Its a myth they have to cling to.  I agree with part of your statement clearly th development has been at different speeds, however thoughout history since the Middle Ages the western part of Europe has tended to develope Faster than the East, with new ideas then migrating eastward. However whilst in the 19th Century and through to the 1930s and possibly 50s it can be said that there was a wide spread sense of "European superiority" this has tended to disapear whilst within the US there is clearly a US first foremost and only attitude. Perhaps this could be seen as the US simply being more honest about their vested interests than many European countries. Again relating back to the Jacksonian article clearly there are different strands of americanism, but this America first and only streak is how it is viwed widelt abroad.

All the Europeon nations pay a lot of money for luxury and benefits for its citizens( Health Care and Welfare)  while millions starve around the world, often in nations that were looted by the Europeons.  Is this not a decision that Europeon luxury(not Europeon lives) is more important that the lives of 3rd worlders?  I do not see how you can cast stones here. 
Whos casting stones? The US and European Union lifestyle & standard of living is roughly the same but the US method uses almost 50% more resource. I as everyone in the western world are living on the backs of others less fortunate than me. Perhaps the significant point is what are you doing to change it. The jacksonian tradition appears to only have the mantra of "there fault for being poor", but as you and others point out, historical as well as modern exploitation of resources in the 3rd world is the primary cause of poverty in the areas. !!!!!



meatcleaver -> RE: Carter, his book, Palestine, the American problem (12/30/2006 4:48:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

Was it Europeans that slaugtered the plains indians or Americans? It was the Europeons, starting with Spain(and yeah they were in the Plains killing long before there was an America), continuing with the Portuguese, French and British , Dutch, and Russians.  You certainly are not so lame as to pretend that only the slaughter of the Great Plains tribes matters are you?  Or are thier lives worth more to you than a Carib, Mayan, Algonquin or Athabascan life?   Some of those Europeons later became "Americans", some became Canadians or Mexicans, ect, and some tok their stolen gold and went back to Europe.    Was it Europeans or Americans that bought the slaves?  Again it was the Europeons, a minority of  whom later became "Americans".  But the Brits, French , and Spainards hauled more slaves to places that are not part of the USA.


One of the main reasons behind the War of Independence was the Proclaimation line that was set up by the British to stop westward migration into Indian territory. Britain was out of the US waaaay before the slaughter of the plains Indians. I think you will also find that the British were the last into slavery and the first out and were out waaaaaaaaaay before the USA.

23 February 1807: British Parliament votes to abolish the trade in slaves.

22 September 1862: Emancipation Proclamation issued by US President Abraham Lincoln.

I agree the European powers have a dismal record but I can no more answer for the ruthlessness of Spain as I can for the US. Britain had more in common with the US than it did on any other European power at that time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

I don't think anyone is saying Europe is better than the US but that two devastating wars (though really it was one) on our soil has caused us to reflect. I realise that this is an important cherished myth to Europeons, but it is simply not born out by the facts.  It depended on who occupied you after ww2, not on Europeon intellectual reflection.  Just compare East and West Germans.



I think you will find that many former East Germans are signally unimpressed with capitalism and much of East Europe is still not so hot on capitalism. Under the USSR it was a case of the grass being greener on the other side, now many people realise it isn't.



Dtesmoac -> RE: Carter, his book, Palestine, the American problem (12/30/2006 4:57:29 PM)

I don't think anyone is saying Europe is better than the US but that two devastating wars (though really it was one) on our soil has caused us to reflect. I realise that this is an important cherished myth to Europeons, but it is simply not born out by the facts.  It depended on who occupied you after ww2, not on Europeon intellectual reflection.  Just compare East and West Germans.
 
O yes I forgot that the US occupied, Sweeden, Switzerland, UK, Ireland, Spain, Portugal,...!!!
I don't see anyone contradicting the point that US military power provided NATO with the means to keep western Europe out of the Soviet Block following WWII. What the US seems to have difficulty with is that Europeans have looke at the US capitalist system and rejected substantial parts of it. The right to self determination is one that perhaps comes up.   




Dtesmoac -> RE: Carter, his book, Palestine, the American problem (12/30/2006 5:09:05 PM)

Was it Europeans that slaugtered the plains indians or Americans? It was the Europeons, starting with Spain(and yeah they were in the Plains killing long before there was an America), continuing with the Portuguese, French and British , Dutch, and Russians.  You certainly are not so lame as to pretend that only the slaughter of the Great Plains tribes matters are you?  Or are thier lives worth more to you than a Carib, Mayan, Algonquin or Athabascan life?   Some of those Europeons later became "Americans", some became Canadians or Mexicans, ect, and some tok their stolen gold and went back to Europe.    Was it Europeans or Americans that bought the slaves?  Again it was the Europeons, a minority of  whom later became "Americans".  But the Brits, French , and Spainards hauled more slaves to places that are not part of the USA.

Arhhhhh, now if the US policy toward native peoples had been the European way perhaps there should be a bit of a different racial demographic in places like ..........India, South Africa - no lets say the whole of Africa, Sri Lanka, Indochina, ........ !! Nope predominantly it is in the Americas, and Australia that genocide of the natives was susccessfull.
The diseases killed more natives in North America than the whites, but the starvaton policies, genocide practises in North America etc where generally during the time of the US, thats one of the reasons so many tribes fled to Canada. However in Europe a realisation that empires may not be such a good thing now seems to be quite the political vogue. Does it require that your own nation makes a mistake to learn from it, or do truly advanced societies learn from the mistakes of others?   
Also of interest in the 1812 war was the Brutality of the Indians and "Civilian" troops compared with the professional soldiers on each side.    



RobertCloud -> RE: Carter, his book, Palestine, the American problem (12/30/2006 5:55:11 PM)

Was it the Europeans that slaughtered the Plains Indians?
Stop!
Spain started the destruction of the indigenous people of the continents of this hemisphere. The Spanish Jesuits purposefully gave smallpox infested blankets to the natives of Florida that began an epidemic that killed nearly a third of all indigenous people on the Eastern Coast of this continent. The Dutch would routinely round up native people with the pretense of a festival and then massacre them while they were eating and unarmed. The French, English, Germans and Russians did similar things.

The French were the first to scalp a Native American. The English actually made bags out of breasts of Native American women and scrotums of elderly Native American men or boys. These are documented facts and not myths, some of the artifacts can be found in museums but the history behind them are kept from the young. Why would they tell you what they don't want you to know?

Now, when it comes to the Plains Indians. No, techinically the Europeans were out of it by then. Technically.... But not truthfully, for every American that was in those wars that slaughtered and massacred the Plains Indians, many times after treaties were signed and the tribes were assured that they were safe so the warriors could go and hunt and then the troops would go in and kill the women, children and elderly before the warriors returned, every one of those warriors were of European bloodlines. They could trace their lineage and did so proudly to someplace in Europe.

It was still the European philosophy of Imminent Domain. That God had made them the stronger so by that right the land was theirs for the taking.

I do not celebrate Thanksgiving because the FIRST Thanksgiving was not to celebrate the arrival of the pilgrims. It was to celebrate the fact that 300 Native Americans had been rounded up into their lodges and locked in, unarmed and then the place was set on fire. When the children were pushed out of the windows, the soldiers shot them.

The Governor of the area proclaimed it a Thanks Giving that they were free to be safe from the infestation of the savages. The next year the President of the US stood on the same spot and made it a National Holiday in memory of the Sacrifice the Soldiers of that BATTLE had made.

I do not celebrate Christmas because Sitting Bull was assassinated during this time of year, so was Crazy Horse, and the massacre at Wounded Knee also occurred, where Union soldiers open fire upon over 700 Sioux men, women and children AFTER they had taken away their weapons, because one native who was hard of hearing did not understand why they wanted his gun and struggled briefly. He handed it too him but a soldier in seeing the struggle had pulled his gun and as the Sioux warrior was giving up his gun freely the soldier shot him in the back. The sound of the gun, (remember none of the other natives had guns) caused all the soldiers to open fire on the Sioux. Killing every single one of them. They left them out in the open, then did not even bother to bury them. Other natives came along and buried them later. The President gave the soldiers Medals of Honor.

It does not matter to me whether or not the ones were fully European or European descent... in fact... though I am of Native Descent, one of my own ancestors is responsible for ordering the massacre at Sand Creek, but we do not bear the shame of our ancestors. We only bear the shame of our own lives.

It does not matter whether it was European or not. For it was not YOU. It is what you do now that matters. It is what the governments do now that matters. Those Medals of Honor that are still on record should be struck from the record. No one should have a Medal of Honor on record for killing someone that was unarmed, no matter who that person was.

And yes, reparations should be made by the American government for all the treaties it broke to the native nations.

But as for me. Just let me be me, and let the truth of history be known. Stop hiding the facts, and tell the truth.



Page: <<   < prev  5 6 7 [8] 9   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
6.445313E-02