Where did the rest of the people come from?

I'm sure they would have a much better life in their home countries. Because Eastern Europe, China, and Africa are such awesome places to live.

rmolin73;1646592 wrote:

The Indians were not some sort of united peaceful nation. They were separate tribes constantly fighting with each other. "Dances with Wolves" is not real history.

Dr Winston O'Boogie;1646700 wrote:The Indians were not some sort of united peaceful nation. They were separate tribes constantly fighting with each other. "Dances with Wolves" is not real history.

So you agree with the mass genocide and theft that occurred because they were not a civilized society with a government.

Dr Winston O'Boogie;1646700 wrote:The Indians were not some sort of united peaceful nation. They were separate tribes constantly fighting with each other. "Dances with Wolves" is not real history.

Totally justified to commit genocide in that case.

Hell I've never even seen "Dances With Wolves"

rmolin73;1646788 wrote:Hell I've never even seen "Dances With Wolves"

You're honestly missing out. Great movie.

I'll have to check it out.

ernest_t_bass;1646793 wrote:You're honestly missing out. Great movie.

Wouldn't go that far. The fact it won the Oscar over Goodfellas is one of the worst mistakes in the history of the award.

rmolin73;1646788 wrote:Hell I've never even seen "Dances With Wolves"

you should widen your horizon Fiddler ....

HelloAgain;1646735 wrote:Totally justified to commit genocide in that case.

Totally misrepresenting history. North America was an open land and they occupied some of it. In many cases, they behaved like our friends in the Middle East do - constantly at war withh each other and using terroristic tactics. The US has acheived more by any measure for the good of humanity than their collective "nations ever did or ever would have.

Dr Winston O'Boogie;1647087 wrote:Totally misrepresenting history. North America was an open land and they occupied some of it. In many cases, they behaved like our friends in the Middle East do - constantly at war withh each other and using terroristic tactics. The US has acheived more by any measure for the good of humanity than their collective "nations ever did or ever would have.

I totally agree. When we're the ones making all the rules about who is "civilized" and who actually has "rights", we're NEVER WRONG!!!!

Dr Winston O'Boogie;1647087 wrote:Totally misrepresenting history. North America was an open land and they occupied some of it. In many cases, they behaved like our friends in the Middle East do - constantly at war withh each other and using terroristic tactics. The US has acheived more by any measure for the good of humanity than their collective "nations ever did or ever would have.

Kind of like these terroristic tactics?
http://www.legendsofamerica.com/20th-gangsters.html

rmolin73;1647133 wrote:Kind of like these terroristic tactics?
http://www.legendsofamerica.com/20th-gangsters.html

That's correct. What happened to the Indians is sad in some respects. It happened over hundreds lf years. They were all these different tribes that savagely fought each other constantly. Europeans were just one more to join the conflict and they prevailed. It wasn't hard to persuade people either when the tactics of many Indians were as bloody and ruthless and indiscriminate as any in warfare. The Indians that migrated from one region to another and "stole" the land belonging to the incumbant, why don't you include those in your genecidal claims. By your reasoning, the only person inhte history of the world who hasq any right to anything is the first amphibian to crawl from the muck. The second one was a thief!

That's not my reasoning trust me. My point is that we all have our blotches in history. It's when people act like they never happened is what I have a problem with.

rmolin73;1647243 wrote:That's not my reasoning trust me. My point is that we all have our blotches in history. It's when people act like they never happened is what I have a problem with.

I agree with you. My original point was that I disregard this narrative that casts Indians as peaceful, united people who somehow just assumed form in the place Euros found them. They were dissimilar warring groups and the Euros became just one more and they ended up besting the rest. History isn't kind or fair, but as always, it took two to tango.

Columbus' crew and the Mayflower were greeted peacefully and even assisted in survival by Native Americans. You could also throw the "lost" colony of Roanoke in there since it's pretty evident they were unable to survive and had to be taken in by Natives. Yet from the onset the Europeans had little such cooperation in mind(from Columbus' own journal)

"They…brought us parrots and balls of cotton and spears and many other things, which they exchanged for the glass beads and hawks’ bells. They willingly traded everything they owned…. They do not bear arms, and do not know them, for I showed them a sword, they took it by the edge and cut themselves out of ignorance…. With 50 men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want."

These thoughts are also parroted by many other European travelers, "hey, they seem to think we come in peace, how can we fuck them over before they catch on?"

It's one thing to win a war. But the European decimation of the Native Americans was far more covert than that, not to mention what was essentially biological warfare of the time. They would have had virtually no chance at conquering anyone without these tactics. Some figures estimate plague wiped out 90% of the population.

This was of course all justified by religious reasons and manifest destiny. And spared not women or children. No different than any other current terrorist group.

HelloAgain;1647265 wrote:Columbus' crew and the Mayflower were greeted peacefully and even assisted in survival by Native Americans. You could also throw the "lost" colony of Roanoke in there since it's pretty evident they were unable to survive and had to be taken in by Natives. Yet from the onset the Europeans had little such cooperation in mind(from Columbus' own journal)

"They…brought us parrots and balls of cotton and spears and many other things, which they exchanged for the glass beads and hawks’ bells. They willingly traded everything they owned…. They do not bear arms, and do not know them, for I showed them a sword, they took it by the edge and cut themselves out of ignorance…. With 50 men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want."

These thoughts are also parroted by many other European travelers, "hey, they seem to think we come in peace, how can we fuck them over before they catch on?"

It's one thing to win a war. But the European decimation of the Native Americans was far more covert than that, not to mention what was essentially biological warfare of the time. They would have had virtually no chance at conquering anyone without these tactics. Some figures estimate plague wiped out 90% of the population.

This was of course all justified by religious reasons and manifest destiny. And spared not women or children. No different than any other current terrorist group.

I got fires up about that story when I read it in the opening pages of Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States".

The problem with it is it uses a story and extrapolates from that a movement that took place over hundreds of years. We're there peaceful Indians in places? Sure just like there were peaceful Euros. But if you were to attempt to walk through North America on your own in 1492, odds are you would have been enslaved and/or killed before you reached the other side. Point is that however ruthless the Euros may have been, the Indians were equally violent and sometimes more so. They wanted a land they had emigrated to, the Euros wanted a land they emigrated to - and the Euros won.

rmolin73;1647243 wrote:That's not my reasoning trust me. My point is that we all have our blotches in history. It's when people act like they never happened is what I have a problem with.

What's worse is the people that act like because something happened to their likeness decades or centuries ago entities them to something now.

bases_loaded;1647327 wrote:What's worse is the people that act like because something happened to their likeness decades or centuries ago entities them to something now.

They're both as bad and both are acted out by the ignorant.

BoatShoes;1647962 wrote:

tl;dr

BoatShoes;1647962 wrote:

I think I've met every single kind of Libertarian on that list in the second comic. There are more, of course, and there's some overlap, but it was enough to give me a chuckle anyway.