[jinnzaman]

Originally Posted by Foxhole

Bang.

Before: Lots of Native Americans, few Europeans
After: Few Native Americans, lots of Europeans.

And they didn't all move to the Riviera. Mostly, we killed them and took their land.

Jinnzaman, you don't have to convince anyone that Europeans wiped out the natives. That and the slave trade are two profoundly horrible actions of early Americans.

But what are you trying to prove? It was a long time ago. Can the validity of democratic principles be judged according to the past actions of the US? No, no more than the ideals of Islam can be judged by the actions of Muslims past.

It's clear that you want to be in a position to denigrate any modern-day claims to moral rectitude made by Americans or their government, but pulling out a litany of past sins does not do that.

Well, firstly, examples of ethnic cleansing isn't limited to solely the Native Americans, but also include the treatment of African Americans up until the 20th century, and the Chinese, which were driven out of roughly 200 towns, and the forced deportation of Mexicans. (The last three events occurred in the 20th century). There seems to be a pattern and practice of ethnic cleansing that didn't happen "all that long ago", not to mention frequent violations of treaties or only agreeing to treaties on favorable conditions.

Then of course, you have the various foreign policy proclamations starting with the Monroe Doctrine, the Roosevelt Corollary, McKinley's acquisition of Spanish possessions, Wilson's sending Marines into the Caribbean to suppress nationalist revolts and two weeks later promoting the self-determination, then there's Hoover's deportation of the Mexicans, the atrocities committed during WWII that targeted civilians, supporting terrorists and human rights abusers during the Cold War Era, up until today.

I mean, you believe that the US government is justified in its invasion of Afghanistan because the government at the time was supporting terrorists financially and protecting them, right? Well, under that same theory, Iran should be able to attack the US because its protecting two terrorist organizations, Mujahideen e Khalq and Jundullah. The US government has gone so far as to provide military convoys to MOK and money to Jundullah. These two groups are actively attacking Iran and killing civilians.

The point is that the democratic proclamations are irrelevant, from day one, America has been an expansionist state. What Hitler did to the Jews is what America's done to other ethnic groups over a prolonged period of time. What Stalin did to his citizens is similar to what American's did to people within its borders and overseas. What al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, and North Korea are all doing is similar to what the US is doing right now.

The foreign policy of America is not motivated by democracy or freedom. It has historically supported neither. The Haitian revolution terrified the founding fathers and they opposed it. When some Indian tribes west of the Mississippi proposed to form their own nation, the framers opposed it and did everything they could to stop it from happening. There were plenty of democratic and nationalistic movements that were stifled, such as the Philippines where over 400,000 people were killed fighting against Americans for their national sovereignty. Or like today where the US government is supporting a dictator in Ethiopia to fight against the UIC in Somalia which has provided stability in the country after a decade. Or the fact that the US looked the other way while Turkey was engaging in ethnic cleansing of Kurds while NATO was bombing Serbia back into the stone age. Or the fact that America has applied no pressure to Israel for its ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians.

I mean, the list goes on and on. Regardless of the supposed "demons" that justified the creation of this aggressive domestic and foreign policy, its clear that America is a hegemonic and expansionist state. It may be more subtle than other powers, but it doesn't detract from it nonetheless.

Whose the number one supporter of illegal arms trade? The US government.
Who is currently funding and protecting terrorist organizations in Iraq and Pakistan? The US government.
Who has condemned the Chinese for torturing people and oppressing the Uighurs, but done the same thing WITH the Chinese in Guantanamo Bay? The US government.

These are not the actions of a fringe group of people, but has been the policy of various administrations regardless of their partisan leanings.

[spicyhijabi]

Ooh This is an interesting thread I didn't see before.
I didn't read the whole thread just the first post.
Are you looking for just North America info? What about South, Central and the Caribbean?

[jinnzaman]

Originally Posted by spicyhijabi

Ooh This is an interesting thread I didn't see before.
I didn't read the whole thread just the first post.
Are you looking for just North America info? What about South, Central and the Caribbean?

Just America for now.

[Sugarberry]

Originally Posted by MossadConspiracy

salam

the indians in North America were not as childish, naive, and dumb as theyre usually made out to be. They didnt just agree to treaties without knowing what the heck they were doing. These groups had been dealing with one another, making and breaking treaties, and dealing with people who spoke other languages for thousands of years.

ws

I dont think I implied that they were childish and dumb, I also recognize that Native Americans did successfully negotiate treaties with other tribes.

What I believe ( from my studies) is at the time of european contact and in the years afterwards ( Prior to the 1800's) is that most Native American tribes didnt have an extensive knowledge of european languages and visa versa. So its not that they were dumb ( far from it) but that just both groups didnt have the language skills to be negotiating serious in depth treaties with people who were foreign to them. Thus resulting in the severe disadvantages that Native Americans experienced later on.

Originally Posted by spicyhijabi

Ooh This is an interesting thread I didn't see before.
I didn't read the whole thread just the first post.
Are you looking for just North America info? What about South, Central and the Caribbean?

Last semester we spent the entire semester studying the various rebellions and revolutions that happend in The carribean and South America so i could totally talk that to death hahah

[sixpakistan]

Originally Posted by jinnzaman

Well, firstly, examples of ethnic cleansing isn't limited to solely the Native Americans, but also include the treatment of African Americans up until the 20th century, and the Chinese, which were driven out of roughly 200 towns, and the forced deportation of Mexicans. (The last three events occurred in the 20th century). There seems to be a pattern and practice of ethnic cleansing that didn't happen "all that long ago", not to mention frequent violations of treaties or only agreeing to treaties on favorable conditions.

Then of course, you have the various foreign policy proclamations starting with the Monroe Doctrine, the Roosevelt Corollary, McKinley's acquisition of Spanish possessions, Wilson's sending Marines into the Caribbean to suppress nationalist revolts and two weeks later promoting the self-determination, then there's Hoover's deportation of the Mexicans, the atrocities committed during WWII that targeted civilians, supporting terrorists and human rights abusers during the Cold War Era, up until today.

I mean, you believe that the US government is justified in its invasion of Afghanistan because the government at the time was supporting terrorists financially and protecting them, right? Well, under that same theory, Iran should be able to attack the US because its protecting two terrorist organizations, Mujahideen e Khalq and Jundullah. The US government has gone so far as to provide military convoys to MOK and money to Jundullah. These two groups are actively attacking Iran and killing civilians.

The point is that the democratic proclamations are irrelevant, from day one, America has been an expansionist state. What Hitler did to the Jews is what America's done to other ethnic groups over a prolonged period of time. What Stalin did to his citizens is similar to what American's did to people within its borders and overseas. What al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, and North Korea are all doing is similar to what the US is doing right now.

The foreign policy of America is not motivated by democracy or freedom. It has historically supported neither. The Haitian revolution terrified the founding fathers and they opposed it. When some Indian tribes west of the Mississippi proposed to form their own nation, the framers opposed it and did everything they could to stop it from happening. There were plenty of democratic and nationalistic movements that were stifled, such as the Philippines where over 400,000 people were killed fighting against Americans for their national sovereignty. Or like today where the US government is supporting a dictator in Ethiopia to fight against the UIC in Somalia which has provided stability in the country after a decade. Or the fact that the US looked the other way while Turkey was engaging in ethnic cleansing of Kurds while NATO was bombing Serbia back into the stone age. Or the fact that America has applied no pressure to Israel for its ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians.

I mean, the list goes on and on. Regardless of the supposed "demons" that justified the creation of this aggressive domestic and foreign policy, its clear that America is a hegemonic and expansionist state. It may be more subtle than other powers, but it doesn't detract from it nonetheless.

Whose the number one supporter of illegal arms trade? The US government.
Who is currently funding and protecting terrorist organizations in Iraq and Pakistan? The US government.
Who has condemned the Chinese for torturing people and oppressing the Uighurs, but done the same thing WITH the Chinese in Guantanamo Bay? The US government.

These are not the actions of a fringe group of people, but has been the policy of various administrations regardless of their partisan leanings.

that was one hell of a post. takbir!

[jinnzaman]

Originally Posted by sixpakistan

that was one hell of a post. takbir!

I wrote that in five minutes.

[Variable]

Originally Posted by jinnzaman

Well, firstly, examples of ethnic cleansing isn't limited to solely the Native Americans, but also include the treatment of African Americans up until the 20th century, and the Chinese, which were driven out of roughly 200 towns, and the forced deportation of Mexicans. (The last three events occurred in the 20th century). There seems to be a pattern and practice of ethnic cleansing that didn't happen "all that long ago", not to mention frequent violations of treaties or only agreeing to treaties on favorable conditions.

Then of course, you have the various foreign policy proclamations starting with the Monroe Doctrine, the Roosevelt Corollary, McKinley's acquisition of Spanish possessions, Wilson's sending Marines into the Caribbean to suppress nationalist revolts and two weeks later promoting the self-determination, then there's Hoover's deportation of the Mexicans, the atrocities committed during WWII that targeted civilians, supporting terrorists and human rights abusers during the Cold War Era, up until today.

I've often heard that in a lot of circles in US academia, the discourse has largely been hushed in an attempt to protect the party line, 'patriotism' and all that. I think if your goal is to bring a counter argument to that, it's definitely commendable.

But if it's to say that the American 'experiment' has been wholesale failure and was destined to be from the beginning due to some fundamental paradox - I'm gonna have to disagree. The US has come a long way, from a position of many unique challenges, and its story continues.

The hypocricy that's been a part of the story isn't news, it's right there from the start in the declaration. Maybe it's different for those who live in the US - I'll admit, I don't know what kind of bias stuff students or even the general population are subjected to.

[Jaysh]

I think Obama's former reverend said it best.

[LEGALEAGLE]

What about Arab ethnic cleansing and genocide in Darfur?

That's occurring now and not 500 years ago.

[MossadConspiracy]

Originally Posted by Sugarberry

I dont think I implied that they were childish and dumb, I also recognize that Native Americans did successfully negotiate treaties with other tribes.

What I believe ( from my studies) is at the time of european contact and in the years afterwards ( Prior to the 1800's) is that most Native American tribes didnt have an extensive knowledge of european languages and visa versa. So its not that they were dumb ( far from it) but that just both groups didnt have the language skills to be negotiating serious in depth treaties with people who were foreign to them. Thus resulting in the severe disadvantages that Native Americans experienced later on.

I disagree, the Indians were able to communicate with the Europeans very effective since almost the very beginning. When Plymouth was founded, there was an Indian (who is usually called Squanto) who had spent 8 or 10 years in the UK and knew english very well and acted as a translator for the pilgrims until their leaders and the local indians could speak to each other directly. Indians all along the Eastern seaboard could speak English and French because of trade for many decades with the Europeans, and alot of European sailors knew Indian languages. This was in the early 17th century. After that time, the knowledge and interconnections between indians and europeans only increased.

The main factor in the downfall of the Indians is disease. The Europeans (and the US government later) did sometimes force them to sign treaties that were unfair, but usually in those situations the indians had no choice because they had lost a war or were starving due to disease or some other calamity, or were under attack from other Indians. The Europeans tended to break treaties too, and so did Indians.

ws

[MossadConspiracy]

Originally Posted by Jaysh

I think Obama's former reverend said it best.

what did he say?

[LEGALEAGLE]

What about the the current genocide of native African Muslims by the Arab regime in Sudan?

War in Darfur - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Sugarberry]

Originally Posted by MossadConspiracy

I disagree, the Indians were able to communicate with the Europeans very effective since almost the very beginning. When Plymouth was founded, there was an Indian (who is usually called Squanto) who had spent 8 or 10 years in the UK and knew english very well and acted as a translator for the pilgrims until their leaders and the local indians could speak to each other directly. Indians all along the Eastern seaboard could speak English and French because of trade for many decades with the Europeans, and alot of European sailors knew Indian languages. This was in the early 17th century. After that time, the knowledge and interconnections between indians and europeans only increased.

Try not to quote directly from your highschool textbook....it makes you sound dumb.

Originally Posted by MossadConspiracy

The main factor in the downfall of the Indians is disease. The Europeans (and the US government later) did sometimes force them to sign treaties that were unfair, but usually in those situations the indians had no choice because they had lost a war or were starving due to disease or some other calamity, or were under attack from other Indians. The Europeans tended to break treaties too, and so did Indians.

ws

your very one sided....Native Americans didnt just live on the east coast....and out of those that did its ludicrious to assume that ALL the tribes on the east coast ( of which there were hundreds if not thousands ) were able to effectively commmunicate with the europeans. In any case I would love to know where your getting your information from. (keep in mind that most sources gloss over the true History of Native Americans....it take a real historian to be able to see beyond the top layer of history and since we both know, you dont study history dont try to tell me what happend to people that I was raised knowing about ).