| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| dan p. |
Posted - 01/15/2005 : 12:41:29 AM
i heard of this idea from somewhere else. i didn't make it up, but i like it.
the rule is that in any sort of the debate on a board regarding politics, the first person to make a reference to hilter or the nazis automatically loses the argument and the thread is closed.
it's a fine rule, i think, and reasonable. what say you? |
| 68 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Fleabass76 |
Posted - 02/26/2005 : 2:57:29 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Jude
"They're not nazi's Walter they're nihilists."
I mean, say what you will about the tenets of national socialism Dude, at least it's an ethos. |
| Hopeful Rolling Waves |
Posted - 02/26/2005 : 2:19:57 PM
Here's the only sex tip any guy really needs: Don't blow your load in less than 5 minutes, racehorse. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 02/25/2005 : 8:36:06 PM
it always seemed a little pretenious to me, but whatever. it's better than that other crap. at least they aren't putting "10 sex tips to spice up your love life" in every issue. honest to god. outside of the biology of it, the mechanics, if you will, i probably know less about sex than. . .anyone in the world. so maybe i don't have a place to be saying this, but it seems that it can't possibly be such an ordeal that it requires 10 tips monthly over the span of years to do a decent job of it. and besides, isn't that like using a game guide to beat a videogame. seems kind of cheap. i say figure it out yourself. otherwise you're just pressing buttons.
also, fluffy, if you're saving up for an epic monster post, could you maybe hold it until tim makes his way back up to the albany area. reading that much text on the board is kind of hard on the ol' peepers. this sort of thing is better suited for person to person. i think it would be more constructive. |
| Hopeful Rolling Waves |
Posted - 02/09/2005 : 3:38:43 PM
Anti-consumerism among other things; they do put out a quality periodical, though. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 02/04/2005 : 8:50:26 PM
hahaha. that's why i don't want you talking about him. keep my identity a secret. you know. |
| Muskrat |
Posted - 02/04/2005 : 5:28:10 PM
I thought Dan P. WAS Hitler... just KIDDING! a JOKE! haHA! |
| guitarisPIMP |
Posted - 02/04/2005 : 1:32:39 PM
i am now going to take this time to get out all my hitlers and nazis out now, so i may refrain from using them later.
hitlerhitlerhitlerhitlerhitlerhitlerhitlerhitlerhitlerhitlerhi
tlerhitlerhitlerhitlerhitlerhitlerhitlerhitlerhitlerhitlerhitlerh
itlerhitlerhitlerhitlerhitlerhitlerhitlerhitlerhitlerhitlerhitlerhi
tlerhitlerhitlerhitlerhitler
nazinazinazinazinazinazinazinazinazinazinazinazinazinazinazinazi
nazinazinazinazinazinazinazinazinazinazinazinazinazinazinazinazinaz
inazinazinazinazinazinazinazinazinazinazi
*EDIT* sorry to those who earlier had a hard time reading the posts beacuse of a lack of line breakage in the msg. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 01/27/2005 : 5:44:09 PM
i have no native blood, and my grandfathers and grandmothers are the first of my ancestors to be born in the usa, so as a matter of fact it isn't my history at all. no one on either side of my family had a part in any of the atrocities. and as bloodstained and regrettable a history as it is, it isn't mine, personal or hereditary. it is the history of the country i was birthed into.
the rule as originally stated was directed more towards modern us leaders. actually, no, that's not true. it was originally meant for comparisons in general, but now clearly that's not any good. let's make it modern us leaders.
i tell you what i like about adbuster, is the quality of the print. but the lack of ads and good print, to me, isn't worth the extra 3 dollars. i wouldn't call it "anti-consumerism." maybe anti-commercialism is nearer the mark. |
| Hopeful Rolling Waves |
Posted - 01/27/2005 : 3:52:47 PM
therippa: quote:
To me it seems like an anti-consumerism magazine is consumerism at it's finest.
Read it, before you start typing. |
| Evergreen |
Posted - 01/27/2005 : 09:41:19 AM
Fluffy said:quote:
tens of MILLIONS of the Western Hemisphere's native people were consumed in a campaign that effectively destroyed... (are you ready for this?) 90-95% of the indigenous inhabitants.
Accurately estimated at more than 125 Million Souls killed/slaughtered from 1492-1890 (From: A Little Matter of Genocide, Ward Churchill)
Dan P. Said: quote:
i'm going to go ahead and trust your information regarding the history of the elimination of the natives here. i'm sure you've studied it and know more about it than me. it's your history and your people.
It's YOUR history too!!!! And not that you shouldn't trust Fluffy's info, but you really ought to try and educate yourself so you get your facts straight!! Fluffy provided some information. And from some of the statements you have made above, you'd benefit from reading and educating yourself on truthful history!! A good start would be the book by Ward Churchill that Fluffy recommended and this one
http://www.dickshovel.com/genosite.html
If you go to the bottom of the page there is a free ebook called Washita: Genocide on the Great Plains written by James Horsley. This book also provides detailed accounts of America's history with genocide. It explains how the "powers that be", our government, convinced the "white folk" that what they were doing (genocide) was justified, necessary, and what God wanted. REAL history, stuff that actually happened. Not the stuff you learned about in school or in fictitious history books written to make the US look good and justify all it's horror.
Sorry Dan, but before you go about proposing RULES you should get your facts straight. Censoring truthful information is how our government has gotten away with such atrocities in the past. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 01/25/2005 : 9:56:04 PM
one might suggest the high cost is a product of it not subsidized by advertising costs. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 01/25/2005 : 9:22:41 PM
hahaha. good point. if it really wanted to be anti-consumerism, they'd just give it away. or not do it at all. |
| therippa |
Posted - 01/25/2005 : 2:36:53 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Hopeful Rolling Waves
Now, I've spent many half-drunk nights debating with my friends about the wrongness of George Bush, and I have some pretty good cases, Adbusters helps, BUT this kind of broadcast finger-pointing started in the media with Rupert Murdoch's newscasts...make something seem like it's right and to everyone who watches it, it is. Johnny Carson started a toilet paper shortage, and George F.Head Bush started a war. It's all TV magic.
Not to purposely throw this thread off the Nazi/Indian theme, but does anyone else find it ironic that Adbusters, an anti-consumerism magazine, costs a little over 8 bucks an issue at the newsstand?
To me it seems like an anti-consumerism magazine is consumerism at it's finest. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 01/25/2005 : 1:57:56 PM
i understand the personal stake you claim, fluffy, being of that lineage yourself. so i'm not going to take offense to you sarcastically pointing out that the holocaust wasn't the only genocide, defining for me the word "diatribe" and giving me its history, and giving me the real number of people killed in the holocaust. and i certainly wouldn't leave the boards because someone disagreed with me. but i know it was more than 6 million. i couldn't think of the grand total off the top of my head, and i didn't want to get bogged down in exact figures when they were't really needed. so i chose a familiar number. i believe i even said "i know it was more." regardless.
the strangest thing is, we seem to agree on the fundamental points. you agreed to my statement that no one is hitler. you would concede, then, that a serious comparision of george bush, or anyone currently in power in the us, to hitler is silly. that's really what my first point was. then it seems that we as a board digressed from that. and that's probably where the disagreeing comes from.
i'm going to go ahead and trust your information regarding the history of the elimination of the natives here. i'm sure you've studied it and know more about it than me. it's your history and your people. so, yes, i suppose the destrction of the natives was a comparable act in many regards to the holocaust. i still maintain that because it was a war, it has to be looked at differently. i view the intentional killing of the civilians in an enemy nation as a war tactic, designed to force the opposition to submit. it's brutal and shouldn't be taken lightly, but it is a method, and i don't think it should be seen as s specific act of hate. if hate is hate regardless, then it shouldn't stand out in a war, which is itself a form of hate, or so i've been told. i think the holocaust, and other genocides, was a stand alone, monumental act of hatred. he wasn't at war with the jews or the old or the gypsies or the gays. he just hated them. i think that makes it different. you probably don't agree, but that's just how i see it.
and now we get to talk about the "right" way to live. so you're suggesting that the way natives lived was the "right" way? i must have been sleeping when someone was given the authority to tell me what the "right" way to live is. you know who else tell people the right way to live? religions. and bush. that's pretty unsavory company to keep for a lot of you. and what if i say that the right way to live is destroy and consume all the land and resources so the earth can start anew? do you think that's the wrong way to live? and if so, so what? where does that leave us? |
| Zachmozach |
Posted - 01/25/2005 : 11:26:25 AM
quote:
quote:
I just have to say we did hate the indians. We hated their way of life because they were obviously didn't live the right way. Like we of course did.
We "OBVIOUSLY" didn't live the right way? No, we didn't live the way the conquerers did. Who is to say which is the "RIGHT" way. I will say that our way didn't fuck up the country over 1000's of years the way YOURS has in 500. You decide which is the "RIGHT" way to live.
Just so you know I was being sarcastic. According to the European and "taker" type of culture the natives weren't living the right way. I mean there was quite a bit written about how they didn't even understand property and thus lived like animals and such. Little did they realize that this is what kept them alive and well for thousands upon thousans of years. I always forget that sarcasm just doesn't come out on the message boards right. |
| Hopeful Rolling Waves |
Posted - 01/25/2005 : 08:43:05 AM
As always, nice post Fluffy. And I take it since I wasn't quoted, we have fairly similar perspectives on this matter. I don't think we'd lose any members over the thread tho. Wish I had more time to think in this box. |
| Fluffy |
Posted - 01/25/2005 : 01:25:39 AM
Now after all that has been written in this post, I would really appreciate it if you would take the TIMe to read ALL of my words which I have taken alot of time to bring together.
OH MY GOD, where to begin. Looking at the names on this thread, I am guessing most of you weren't around for the Isaac debacle. Well I can't go on reading all of this and keep my mouth shut. If we lose more members so be it. I do feel I need to set the record straight on a few things. The quotes below are the ones I feel most compelled to comment on. I will try and comment directly to them where I can, but in some cases I think my diatribe(oh and it will be a diatribe)at the end will cover all of them in some form or fashion.
quote:
when you compare someone to hitler, think about the putrified corpses, the naked, half dead rail thin people wallowing in their own piss, shit and blood. the stench. the burning flesh. rape after rape, beating after beating. the screams and moans of the dying. the experiments. that's what the nazis did. to say nothing of the invasions and warfare and propaganda.
And how is this ANY different than what was done to the Indians?
Lets substitute shall we:
When you compare someone to "America and it's policies toward Indians", think about the putrified corpses, the naked, half DEAD, rail thin people wallowing in their own piss, shit and blood. The stench. The burning flesh. Rape after rape, beating after beating. The screams and moans of the dying. That's what America and her policies toward Indians did. To say nothing of the invasions and warfare and propoganda.
Now do I need to provide you with specific instances of each of these atrocities commited against Indians? I will be happy to if you like. I have many.
quote:
no one is hitler.
I agree with you on this. BUT at the same time, people all over the world have acted in ways similar to Hitler. The list is far to long to begin here. Atrocities and genocide have happened all over the world and continue to happen as we speak. So don't fool yourself into believeing that Hitler was a fluke, because that would be turning a blind eye to the 100's of other instances of a leader killing people. Problem is, people get hung up on numbers, as I will cover later, but that does not mean that other people are not behaving a manner like Hitler.
quote:
I'd be interested to see a total number of deaths the US is responsible for starting with American Indians thru to today. I bet 6 million might be close!!
I will be getting to that in my closing diatribe.(which is the perfect word or what I shall embark on. For those of you who do not know the meaning of the word, here it is:
Main Entry: di·a·tribe
Pronunciation: 'dI-&-"trIb
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin diatriba, from Greek diatribE pastime, discourse, from diatribein to spend (time), wear away, from dia- + tribein to rub —more at THROW
Date: 1581
1 : archaic : a prolonged discourse
2 : a bitter and abusive speech or writing
3 : ironical or satirical criticism
quote:
6 million over a couple centuries is not the same as 6 million in a couple of decades.
First off, you all seem to fall in the obvious trap of "history". Let's set the record straight shall we. The Nazi's are responsible for 26 million deaths. 6 million of those were Jews. Hardly seems like a they were ONLY after Jews. History would love for you to remember it this way as it strengthens the myth that holocaust against Jews is the only example of genocide. The Nazi's campaign of genocide was far more widespread. If you are only talking about numbers, then yes, maybe what the Nazi's did in a short span of time is uncomparable to anything else, but if you are talking about genocide, they are definitely comparable. Genocide is genocide, no matter the number. The accepted definition of genocide is "any coordinated and planned annihilation of a national, religious, or racial group by a VARIETY of actions aimed at undermining the foundations essential to the survival of the group OR groups." So by this definition, it's not a number that describes genocide, it's an action. This action can be found all over the world by many different people including the US govt toward the Indians. If you are going to accept the Holocaust as genocide, you must accept the definition that defines it and recognize that what happened to the Indians constitutes genocide. Comparatively speaking, if you want to go with numbers, over the course of 4 centuries, from Columbus' first landing on Hispanola in the fall of 1492 to the US Army massacre of innocent, Indian men, women and children at Wounded Knee in 1891, tens of MILLIONS of the Western Hemisphere's native people were consumed in a campaign that effectively destroyed... (are you ready for this?) 90-95% of the indigenous inhabitants.
quote:
we killed the indians for their land in a war. in fact, all the killing we've done have been in wars.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Both of these statements are incorrect. Which I am sure if you stop and think about it you will realize. Do I really need to provide specific examples or are you willing to retract that utterly ludicrous statement?
quote:
never in cold blood has the american government selected a specific racial or whatever group of people within it's own and surrounding countries and tortured and killed them.
INDIANS!!! Do you know anything of the campaign waged against American Indians on your soil? Or how they have carried it out? They did not kill most of the Indians in BATTLES as "history" would like so many to believe. The largest portion of Indians were slaughtered. President Theodore Roosevelt happily called the US military's grisly mass murder of hundreds of Indian WOMEN and CHILDREN at Sand Creek in Colorado "as righteous and beneficial a deed as ever took place on the frontier." And if you think that was an isolated incident, you are sorely mistaken. Again, I will be happy to provide endless examples if need be.
quote:
don't give me banning gay marriage. it's stupid, but it's not genocide. and don't give me pow torture either. that was also stupid, but it was just humiliating. it wasn't anywhere near what the nazi's did. hitler killed the jews, cripples, gays, gypsies and elderly because he hated them.
Okay, I won't give you "banning gay marriage", "p.o.w. torture" but how about list of 400 hundred tribes descimated and included among those killed men, women, children, cripples, and elderly. Are you trying to tell me that the people who killed Indians didn't hate them? Again, I can start the list of quotes from soldiers and politicians calling for the annihilation of Indians. But I don't think I need to go there. Oh my friend, it does compare. More than most will ever care to admit out loud. Because then we have to admit to ourselves we are little better than what we condemn with all our hearts.
quote:
i understand that we ruined indians. we killed the indians because we wanted their land. i know that's not right, but that's why it was done. it wasn't like we sat around europe going "i hate those fucking indians so much. let's kill them all." whereas the jews were killed simply out of an extrordinary hatred. the two aren't comparable because of that.
This is why these arguments become such a problem. The Indians were killed for the land they wanted, but you must understand, they were hated and looked down upon in exactly the same way the Nazi's looked down on Jews, GYPSIES, SLAVS etc etc etc Nazi's wanted to conquer eastern europe for the Germans, Nazi's looked down on others as inferior and subhuman, Americans wanted to conquer the Indians for America. they looked down on Indians and inferior and subhuman. What's the difference?
The following excerpt (from a paper read by Carlisle founder Capt. Richard C. Pratt at an 1892 convention) spotlights Pratt’s pragmatic and frequently brutal methods for “civilizing” the “savages,” including his analogies to the education and “civilizing” of African Americans.
quote:
A great general has said that the only good Indian is a dead one, and that high sanction of his destruction has been an enormous factor in promoting Indian massacres. In a sense, I agree with the sentiment, but only in this: that all the Indian there is in the race should be dead. Kill the Indian in him, and save the man.
Please take a moment and real the WHOLE text. Hopefully it will shock you. Here is the link:
http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/4929/
I agree Europeans weren't sitting around saying "I hate fucking Indians, lets go take their land" but once they got here I do believe alot of them sat around saying that exact thing. Although it was probably something more along the lines of "Well now we are here and all that stands between us and this country are these subhuman savages. We need them out of the way by any means necessary!"
quote:
I just have to say we did hate the indians. We hated their way of life because they were obviously didn't live the right way. Like we of course did.
We "OBVIOUSLY" didn't live the right way? No, we didn't live the way the conquerers did. Who is to say which is the "RIGHT" way. I will say that our way didn't fuck up the country over 1000's of years the way YOURS has in 500. You decide which is the "RIGHT" way to live.
quote:
The "savages" were hated and propaganda was written about them as well.
EXACTLY like the Nazi's did against the Jews.
quote:
I mean hate is hate. Two different things, but I would say that it's definitely comparable. You have to say that Europeans (at least a majority of them) coming over here hated the indians and devised a plan to wipe them out. I mean the reasons are different, but once again very comparable.
I agree, very comparable, but as I laid out above, I think the reasons are VERY similar.
quote:
i don't get it. slavery was awful, and killing the indians wasn't really our brightest shining moment. these things should be looked back on grimly and it should be understood that they were bad, but it isn't something you should feel shame for personally. not unless you've been having slaves or killing indians when things are slow.
Or if you support the policies still in effect that keep the Indians from self-determination. It still goes on today. No we don't take them out and mow them down with guns, but there is still a policy of assimilation in this country that precludes the Indians existing the way they want to. Indians are still fighting for land, fishing rights, and rights guaranteed them in treaties that are still NOT being honored to this day. So yes, your blissful ignorance is STILL hurting Indians.
quote:
both were genocides, but one was far more macabre in its execution, directed at people who were helpless to defend themselves, and to no specific end other than the total annihilation of an entire people.
This one had me gasping for air. As you never specified "WHICH" genocide, I could only laugh because it sounds like you could be describing either one to me. Exactly the same, BOTH genocides, macabre in their execution directed at people who were helpless to defend themselves, and to no specific end other than the total annihiliation of an entire people. Your words help strengthen my case.
quote:
and by japanese i mean the interment camps, not the cities of nagasaki and hiroshima. that was war, and it's my belief that as long as you're in a war and you're killing people, it's absurd to set up limits on what's "right" and what's "too far." as far as the fighting is concerned. you're already killing people. the bounds have already been crossed, it no longer matters. everything is fair game. bombing cities is an effective war tactic. a leader of a country with no people is no leader at all.
Again, I feel compelled to use your own words against you. Killing people is killing people in war no matter how it's done. Everything is fair game. Yet earlier you said that "we killed Indians in a war over land". OK, then you must concede that that there was a WAR against the Indians for their land. So according to you, you can't draw boundries, in a war everything is fair. So any way that the US killed Indians is part of the WAR against them for their land. Well as I pointed out earlier MOST Indians were not killed in battles, but none the less, KILLED. So by your own words however they were killed constitues part of the war. Well I also think I have effectively laid out how this "WAR" also constitutes GENOCIDE, very similar to the kind of genocide perpetrated by Hitler against a number of groups.
I have spent alot more time with each of the quotes than I expected, effectively eliminating alot of my aforementioned diatribe. I do still have alot to say. Before I say it, let me recommend where most of my material will come from. Before you start shouting that my numbers are wrong or whatever, you better take the time to read the book and then feel free to call into question my facts and comments. I am happy to reference any numbers or facts you think I might be taking liberty with.
The BOOK:
A Little Matter of Genocide: Holocaust and Denial in the Americas 1492 to the Present by Ward Churchill
He frames the matter by examining both "revisionist" denial of the nazi-perpetrated Holocaust and the opposing claim of it's exclusive "uniqueness" using the full scope of what happened in Europe as a backdrop against which to demonstrate that genocide is precisely what has been, and still is, carried out against American Indians. Churchill lays bare the means by which many of these realities have remained hidden, how public understanding of this most monstrous of crimes has been subverted not only by it's perpetrators and their beneficiaries buy by institutions and individuals who perceive advantages in the confusion. In particular, he outlines the reasons underlying the US' 40 year refusal to ratify the Genocide Convention(bet you didn't know that about your country), as well as the implications of the attempt to exempt itself(the US)from compliance when it finally offered it's "endorsements".
|
| rubylith |
Posted - 01/24/2005 : 09:23:03 AM
where did you get that avatar? |
| dan p. |
Posted - 01/22/2005 : 2:05:49 PM
i had a whole long thing here, but my computer crashed. i'll probably type it up when i feel like it again. sorry. |
| Arthen |
Posted - 01/21/2005 : 2:18:45 PM
It never costs anything to bash the French anyways. They always run away before you can get there to give them a bashing.
|
| pants_happy |
Posted - 01/21/2005 : 12:49:35 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Hopeful Rolling Waves
This internet aguing is dumb, I feel like I'm all over the place, sometimes I wish we could all sit in a room together and yell at each other. 
i'll make enough freedom fries for everyone, and i'll bash the french at no extra cost.
just kidding |
| Zachmozach |
Posted - 01/21/2005 : 12:24:22 PM
The thing that sucks about the whole situation with the natives now is that they are still getting screwed hardcore and it's because you and I let it happen. I mean not only have they had their culture stripped from them as we slowly have absorbed them into our culture or just killed them off, but they are at the bottom of the ladder in our country. I mean we are in the proccess of really fucking up Iraq as well. The reason people who know about history feel bad about it is because it's not like it's some dark chapter in the past, but because we're still doing some of the same stupid shit today.
Then you have all these brainwashed people that will tell me things like "vietnam was a good war that even though we didn't win it, it was nessecary to stop the commies". So that's what sucks about it is that still today you meet people that don't give a rats ass about what our anscestors did to the natives and what we're still doing to them. I mean no one should feel personally bad for what someone besides themselves did 100 years ago, but they should feel bad that it happened and it's still going on. |
| pants_happy |
Posted - 01/21/2005 : 11:23:23 AM
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2027&ncid=2027&e=2&u=/chitribts/20050121/ts_chicagotrib/bushseesglobalmissionin2ndterm
it seems that the world has no choice but to be free. how ironic. |
| pants_happy |
Posted - 01/21/2005 : 11:20:55 AM
quote:
Originally posted by dan p.
pants, i really don't know why you posted any of that. perhaps you misunderstood the point of what i said. i understand that the civil war wasn't about ending slavery. i understand that we ruined indians. we killed the indians because we wanted their land. i know that's not right, but that's why it was done. it wasn't like we sat around europe going "i hate those fucking indians so much. let's kill them all." whereas the jews were killed simply out of an extrordinary hatred. the two aren't comparable because of that.
correct me if i'm wrong, i only have high school history to go on here, but believe that slavery was practiced in other countries as well. condemn the us for it, but condemn everyone else, too.
bringing up a new point, it seems kind of silly for bitching out america for slavery 200 years ago. do you still hate germany for the holocaust?
to me, it all boils down to a quote from George Santayana, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." nothing has ever proven more true to humanity. that's why we must always compare the present to the past. |
| Hopeful Rolling Waves |
Posted - 01/21/2005 : 10:37:43 AM
Dan, I always appreciate your fervor, but this time you wound up dismissing aruguments on a personal level. Like "no one has heckled me for not believing in Christ" or "why would you feel remorse for a history you weren't a part of" BECAUSE we are all in large part responsible for what happens to us. We all have been and we all will. When a gov't is pushing MORAL VALUES as their main political strategy (and that's what it boiled down to), they are holding their belief system over you. And on a grander scale, countries couldn't get away with the sort of nasty shit they did if all the lunatics who populated them didn't support it, sincere or not. No Jews would have been killed in the Holocaust if no one followed Hitler. Everyone has an obligation to recognize this shit as wrong, and believe it or not, I feel pretty shitty about what happened to the Native Americans sometimes despite when it occured, that might seem like bullshit, but I do, I honestly feel their culture should play a much bigger part in our way of life; we're missing out. You're right, it wasn't the Third Reich over here, but that doesn't make it right or anyway justified. This internet aguing is dumb, I feel like I'm all over the place, sometimes I wish we could all sit in a room together and yell at each other. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 01/21/2005 : 12:43:47 AM
well this who thread is about comparing things to hitler. good or not, that's what this is about. but in retrospect, it's rather a silly thing. i mean, here we are talking about america's bloodstained past. such a thing isn't reasonable for disliking a country. you can not like what we're doing now, and that's fine. understandable, too. but people seem to carry a certain shame with them about being american because of its history. a history in which they played no part, having not even been born yet.
i don't get it. slavery was awful, and killing the indians wasn't really our brightest shining moment. these things should be looked back on grimly and it should be understood that they were bad, but it isn't something you should feel shame for personally. not unless you've been having slaves or killing indians when things are slow. save shame for things you've done that you're not proud of, not what you're born as. and equally save pride for things you done, not for being irish or black or gay. i still don't believe the slaughter of the indians was coeveal to the holocaust. both were genocides, but one was far more macabre in its execution, directed at people who were helpless to defend themselves, and to no specific end other than the total annihilation of an entire people. slavery seems nearer to the mark in many ways, but then the idea wasn't to destroy all the blacks. a dead slave wasn't worth anything.
but if we're to dislike countries for their pasts, i think it's time we all take a moment and bash england. they spent a deal of time fucking people over, as i understand it. |
| Zachmozach |
Posted - 01/20/2005 : 10:13:50 PM
quote:
Originally posted by dan p.
pants, i really don't know why you posted any of that. perhaps you misunderstood the point of what i said. i understand that the civil war wasn't about ending slavery. i understand that we ruined indians. we killed the indians because we wanted their land. i know that's not right, but that's why it was done. it wasn't like we sat around europe going "i hate those fucking indians so much. let's kill them all." whereas the jews were killed simply out of an extrordinary hatred. the two aren't comparable because of that.
I just have to say we did hate the indians. We hated their way of life because they were obviously didn't live the right way. Like we of course did. The "savages" were hated and propaganda was written about them as well. I mean hate is hate. Two different things, but I would say that it's definitely comparable. You have to say that Europeans (at least a majority of them) coming over here hated the indians and devised a plan to wipe them out. I mean the reasons are different, but once again very comparable. I don't what good comes from the comparison though. |
| Zachmozach |
Posted - 01/20/2005 : 10:06:11 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Arthen
I would say that a part of human nature is to expand and create new things. Would you argue against that? Therefore, living in a nomadic or non-nomadic hunter-gatherer society would become obsolete and a new way of living would be created. Priorities changed and became focused not on survival but on getting and mantaining power.
Yes, but the first forms of real power (because chimapanzees also have power structures as do hunter gatherer societies) came from people locking up food. It's a well documented fact that the hunter/gatherer spends less calories to get his calories then we do today as a society. There have also been a number of studies done about how societies of the past have greatly suffered when they switched to agriculture. So I guess that's along the lines of what you just said, but I think that goes against nature and I wouldn't exactly say it's human nature. I mean there is a natural way to live and I don't think that I would call the way we are living human nature. I would just say that it's a cultural experiment gone to shit.
Then again I guess we could argue on what human nature is or isn't for eternity, as people often have different ideas of what human nature is. The Dali Lama will tell you that it is human nature to love and be compassionate. Christianity will tell you it's human nature to sin and all that and we have to overcome it. It's just a deeply rooted cultural thing I guess. My problem is that I would classify empire building, or war as not a natural thing (at least the way we have wars today) because it's not programed into us by nature, but that it's a learned cultural behavior. |
| Arthen |
Posted - 01/20/2005 : 8:42:27 PM
Everyone did bad things. Everyone is guilty. The end. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 01/20/2005 : 8:19:12 PM
pants, i really don't know why you posted any of that. perhaps you misunderstood the point of what i said. i understand that the civil war wasn't about ending slavery. i understand that we ruined indians. we killed the indians because we wanted their land. i know that's not right, but that's why it was done. it wasn't like we sat around europe going "i hate those fucking indians so much. let's kill them all." whereas the jews were killed simply out of an extrordinary hatred. the two aren't comparable because of that.
correct me if i'm wrong, i only have high school history to go on here, but believe that slavery was practiced in other countries as well. condemn the us for it, but condemn everyone else, too.
bringing up a new point, it seems kind of silly for bitching out america for slavery 200 years ago. do you still hate germany for the holocaust? |
| Arthen |
Posted - 01/20/2005 : 4:13:09 PM
I would say that a part of human nature is to expand and create new things. Would you argue against that? Therefore, living in a nomadic or non-nomadic hunter-gatherer society would become obsolete and a new way of living would be created. Priorities changed and became focused not on survival but on getting and mantaining power. |
| Zachmozach |
Posted - 01/20/2005 : 1:55:32 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Arthen
Empires have been going on for centuries, it's a part of human nature like it or not. They will continue to go on as well.
I don't have any idea how you put empires under human nature unless you state that everything done by a human is human nature. Consider that the first beginings of empires didn't start till about 6000 years ago. 15,000 years ago there was no way empires would work as the population made it impossible. Remember that only the culture that practices totalitarian agriculture has had the problem of the empire. Anatomically correct humans have been around for around 150,000 years. What I'm saying is only one culture has this problem with empires and it's the culture that has been taking over the world since about 10,000 years ago. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 01/20/2005 : 12:58:05 PM
our hands are filthy, it's true. we did fuck the natives. we did fuck the slaves. we did fuck the japanese. i don't know that i'd put hippies on the same level of fuckedness as, say, the native americans.
and by japanese i mean the interment camps, not the cities of nagasaki and hiroshima. that was war, and it's my belief that as long as you're in a war and you're killing people, it's absurd to set up limits on what's "right" and what's "too far." as far as the fighting is concerned. you're already killing people. the bounds have already been crossed, it no longer matters. everything is fair game. bombing cities is an effective war tactic. a leader of a country with no people is no leader at all.
do you really feel they're pushing their religion on you? i don't. i've not been heckled for not going to church yet. i've never been penalized for not believing in christ. and neither has anyone i know. every time hear someone talk about religion being forced on them, i wonder how exactly they mean it. they're not forcing your to worship a god. |
| pants_happy |
Posted - 01/20/2005 : 12:52:47 PM
quote:
Originally posted by dan p.
6 million over a couple centuries is not the same as 6 million in a couple of decades.
we killed the indians for their land in a war. in fact, all the killing we've done have been in wars. never in cold blood has the american government selected a specific racial or whatever group of people within it's own and surrounding countries and tortured and killed them. don't give me banning gay marriage. it's stupid, but it's not genocide. and don't give me pow torture either. that was also stupid, but it was just humiliating. it wasn't anywhere near what the nazi's did. hitler killed the jews, cripples, gays, gypsies and elderly because he hated them. like anakin with the tuskan raiders.
all i can say is wow. have you studied our history at all, or do you merely go off of high school history, originally set up to make us patriotic?
gen·o·cide
n.
The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.
the american gov't killed and wiped out entire tribes and cultures of native americans. those tribes were seperate entities unto themselves (and there were many), not one entity ala the US. we obliterated their cultures and eventually assimilated those who would go along, killed and hunted those who wouldn't. even after they gave up resisting, we passed hundreds of laws to assure that they had no freedom or identity of their own. it was a war. it was a war on indians.
and who can forget about african americans? those that actually survived the voyage to the new world were legally sold and traded, legally killed and beaten, and all but legally raped, except for the laws against miscegenation. slavery, for most blacks, was worse than death.
people who don't know shit about history think that the civil war was a noble and just cause, meant to end slavery. the civil war wasn't about ending slavery, it was about preventing the spread of slavery. the newly formed republican party was hamiltonian all the way, and as such they were about one thing: business. they were solidly against preventing the spread of slavery (not ending slavery) because the businessmen would -only- be able to sell their land in the new territories if there were no blacks living anywhere near. no european or american settlers (that didn't own slaves) would buy land in a territory with blacks.
lincoln went after the confederacy because he and his party felt that the confederacy was vital to their dreams of the US becoming an economic world power. no slaves were freed during the first 2 years of the war.
the emancipation proclamation, which only freed slaves in confederate territory, was was almost as unpopular in the north as it was in the south. it was done as a mean to get britain and france to back off from being the confederate's ally, as it made the confederacy look like they were fighting to preserve slavery, something france or britain would never support, instead of fighting for their independence.
reconstruction, which was revenge for the south breaking off, meant little to blacks. having nowhere to go, almost all former slaves became share croppers for the plantations, and were legally bound to them because they made less in crops than they ate, and had to work that off.
in the bargain of 1877, republicans eagerly sold out blacks so that hayes would be president, and in turn hayes ended reconstruction and any enforcement of black equality or rights. jim crow laws intimidated blacks and denied them civil rights and liberties for nearly a century after.
these are but 2 short examples of how our gov't has killed and shunned entire peoples, including its own. the US's history is extremely bloody and full of cancers.
arthen is exactly right when he says "Empires have been going on for centuries, it's a part of human nature like it or not. They will continue to go on as well."
saying that one is worse than the other doesn't carry much weight. |
| Hopeful Rolling Waves |
Posted - 01/20/2005 : 10:23:44 AM
The American tradition is one of bloodbaths and mistreatment of everyone, and the reason we have gotten away with it is because our government doesn't tell us about it. If all the violence we created didn't resonate in the world so much, we'd have a pretty rosy view of things. Look at Iraq coverage on FOX or CNN, according to them, it's blue skies and butterflies over there, which we all know is a steaming pile of dogshit. It's more dangerous than when we started, why, cause we fuck everything up so bad, WE can't even fix it.
I heard a quote of some political pundit (I wish I remembered who) saying "...the government has an OBLIGATION to lie to the public." Sure I guess, but that's only to avoid the kind of democratic resistance that this country was supposedly built to facilitate.
We fucked the natives, we fucked the slaves, we fucked the Japanese, we fucked the hippies, we fucked Arabs...now I am hoping that someone fucks us, hard. I don't wanna die, but this country has overstepped the boundries of human decency way too many times. It's not the Mesopatamians, or Romans, or Ottomans or whatever anymore. This is the 21st century, we've come a long way. We have a civic duty as the "world's most powerful nation" to be the guy who says, "Hey, wait. We don't have to kill each other anymore. If you calm down for 5 minutes, everything can be sorted out." The world no longer NEEDS a history of death and undermining, it's been done. It needs to be turned around, so to the point here, this god-damned administration, and I say god-damned completely literally, will NOT be the one to change anything. They are forcing their religious beliefs on us, all while lying, stealing from our fellow countrymen (war vets, social security beneficiaries), and whipping up a frenzy of fear and hatred; and not even noticing they've done any of it.
Oh yeah, I don't like when people say they don't like George Bush either if they can't back it up...but it doesn't take much. And I saw a post up there by Evergreen using Hitler as a reference:
quote:
...many similarities between bush and the US government and hitler.
So we all lose.   |
| dan p. |
Posted - 01/19/2005 : 7:53:06 PM
6 million over a couple centuries is not the same as 6 million in a couple of decades.
we killed the indians for their land in a war. in fact, all the killing we've done have been in wars. never in cold blood has the american government selected a specific racial or whatever group of people within it's own and surrounding countries and tortured and killed them. don't give me banning gay marriage. it's stupid, but it's not genocide. and don't give me pow torture either. that was also stupid, but it was just humiliating. it wasn't anywhere near what the nazi's did. hitler killed the jews, cripples, gays, gypsies and elderly because he hated them. like anakin with the tuskan raiders. |
| Arthen |
Posted - 01/19/2005 : 6:28:39 PM
Empires have been going on for centuries, it's a part of human nature like it or not. They will continue to go on as well. |
| Evergreen |
Posted - 01/19/2005 : 4:08:58 PM
quote:
its my belief that if you support this government, you are a turd.
Sure, I might be wrong, and I might not argue in the correct way, but one things is for sure,
there are a lot of people dead and a lot of other people rich for the main goal of globalization and empire.
Definitely Definitely!! Excellent statement Dave!! and thank you.
To support this see www.chomsky.info
read anything on Noams website, mainly the articles and interviews. read one or many. Same messages, same important points reinforced. Its stunning factual info in clear detail.
and many similarities between bush and the US government and hitler. I'd be interested to see a total number of deaths the US is responsible for starting with American Indians thru to today. I bet 6 million might be close!!
|
| rubylith |
Posted - 01/19/2005 : 1:10:09 PM
its my belief that if you support this government, you are a turd.
Sure, I might be wrong, and I might not argue in the correct way, but one things is for sure,
there are a lot of people dead and a lot of other people rich for the main goal of globalization and empire. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 01/19/2005 : 11:58:56 AM
tv and radio, if they have perfected nothing else (and they haven't) they've perfected the art of accusation. and in the grand tradition of finger pointing, i'm going to blame the right wing for this. all of these political talk show, tv show, and book writing jackoffs really push the craft of witless drivel. we get it. clinton had an affair. get. over. it. him and millions of other men. in a strange sort of way, he's a good representation of america in that respect. leastways american men. but i digress. if the right wants to start growing up, they can stop taking clever jabs at their "opponents" and start trying to present their views in a reasonable fashion. don't get me wrong, making fun of liberals is hilarious, but don't try to pass it off as serious subject matter. ann coulter, for example needs to go.
but what i meant by "i wonder how liberals get the stereotype of being elitist and arrogant" or whatever i wrote (i can't be bothered to scroll down) it's because of "if you support anyone in bush's administration you are misinformed and unintelligent." to me, this is classic leftist arrogance, and it really does nothing to help your cause. as if you're so fucking smart and you have an absolute monopoly on truth and righteousness, and anyone who doesn't agree with you is obviously an ignorant fool without brains enough to fill a thimble. spare me that, please. it's a fanastic example of intolerance, and it really illustrates thoughtlessness well, but it doesn't do much in terms of not being exactly like that the people you disagree with. |
| Hopeful Rolling Waves |
Posted - 01/19/2005 : 09:27:27 AM
Saint Jude wins for a blatant Lebowski reference.
And you're correct dan p, the media has picked up on the fact that Dems are now looked to to denounce Bush. Now, I've spent many half-drunk nights debating with my friends about the wrongness of George Bush, and I have some pretty good cases, Adbusters helps, BUT this kind of broadcast finger-pointing started in the media with Rupert Murdoch's newscasts...make something seem like it's right and to everyone who watches it, it is. Johnny Carson started a toilet paper shortage, and George F.Head Bush started a war. It's all TV magic. |
| guitarted |
Posted - 01/18/2005 : 7:14:36 PM
quote:
Originally posted by pants_happy
have you taken practical reasoning? arguing properly and giving charity are good and everything, but something can still be completely logical and be false. but i'd argue (no pun intended) that it's one of the most useful classes i've taken. it does wonders for papers, can help you quickly point out flaws in arguments, and shows that logic and what bush says are two different animals.
This is definetly exactly what i was just talking about.
You can have a Good Strong argument, and it can still be untrue.
The key sometimes is to just suspend judgement on something you hear. There is no need to immediately accept or reject something that you've been told. It's not like you ALWAYS need to have an opinion.
This is one of the best things I learned from the class. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 01/18/2005 : 6:19:45 PM
you are hitler and a nazi. |
| Saint Jude |
Posted - 01/18/2005 : 2:15:22 PM
"They're not nazi's Walter they're nihilists." |
| pants_happy |
Posted - 01/18/2005 : 1:13:26 PM
have you taken practical reasoning? arguing properly and giving charity are good and everything, but something can still be completely logical and be false. but i'd argue (no pun intended) that it's one of the most useful classes i've taken. it does wonders for papers, can help you quickly point out flaws in arguments, and shows that logic and what bush says are two different animals. |
| guitarted |
Posted - 01/18/2005 : 1:02:35 PM
I recently took a course in university all about critical thinking and proper arguments.
I don't know how much people care to argue properly but this is the book:
http://www.bookworkz.com/education/philosophy/0534561020.html
My Dad and I both think they should be teaching this in highschool.
I don't want to be the argument police but I see plenty of arguments that could use a tweak for full effect.
Learning to argue properly isn't about being a dick to your friends though and shutting down everythign they say because they use a fallacy though. It's makes you a clearer thinker and a much better listener too. You'd be amazed how much it helps with your arguing and your general thought process while in discussions. |
| pants_happy |
Posted - 01/18/2005 : 1:00:45 PM
i guess that means he's retarded. |
| pants_happy |
Posted - 01/18/2005 : 12:57:21 PM
no he doesn't.
simply for the reason(s) that
A) he... ... .
ok, he wins this round.
|
| dan p. |
Posted - 01/18/2005 : 12:55:15 PM
i wonder where ever liberals got the stereotype of arrogant and elitist.
i'd agree about the bush thing for the most part, but i'd also add that not supporting anyone in the bush administration doesn't make you intellegent or informed. for instance, you could oppose them because your friends oppose them, or your favorite musicians oppose them. i know there's plenty of people who do that. i'd also question anyone who lays claim to the title "well informed." it's just a hunch, and maybe i'm wrong, but i get the impression that there's a thing or two going on that no media outlet has picked up. |
| Hopeful Rolling Waves |
Posted - 01/18/2005 : 11:56:14 AM
Guitarted wins! |
| guitarted |
Posted - 01/18/2005 : 11:13:10 AM
Yes, but...
I have no comment, but this seemed appropriate |
| rubylith |
Posted - 01/18/2005 : 09:21:10 AM
also rule two should be if you support anyone in bush's administration you are misinformed and unintelligent then the thread is closed and you are sent to iraq or iran. |
| pcbTIM |
Posted - 01/18/2005 : 04:16:44 AM
quote:
Originally posted by dan p.
but imagine it. 6 million jews alone. the count was higher, but let's take 6 million. no one here even has the capacity to imagine it.
"One death is a tragedy. A million deaths is a statistic." - Stalin |
| Zachmozach |
Posted - 01/17/2005 : 6:00:07 PM
quote:
Originally posted by pcbTIM
So I guess using the History Channel as a source is out then?
HAHAHA! I thought they finally changed it's name to the all war channel. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 01/16/2005 : 11:18:15 PM
i think i compared neil young to the nazi medical experiments. and although that wasn't a political thread, i still lose. absurd. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 01/16/2005 : 10:59:06 PM
no. the point is to stop having people compare the nazis and hitler to bush or whatever. because if a political thread goes on longer enough, it always ends up someone calls someone else, someone on the board or not, hitler or a nazi. and really, i think that's a little extreme. no one is hitler, and comparisions are without base and stale besides.
i can't stand how people throw the reference around constantly. i'm not an overly sensitive person about this sort of thing. but imagine it. 6 million jews alone. the count was higher, but let's take 6 million. no one here even has the capacity to imagine it. think about what you're saying. when you compare someone to hitler, think about the putrified corpses, the naked, half dead rail thin people wallowing in their own piss, shit and blood. the stench. the burning flesh. rape after rape, beating after beating. the screams and moans of the dying. the experiments. that's what the nazis did. to say nothing of the invasions and warfare and propaganda. if you compare bush to that, you're obviously not thinking. and if you compare him to that and you are thinking, you're a fucking moron. no one is hitler. ask a holocaust survivor is anyone is hitler. the answer is a resounding "no." |
| guitarisPIMP |
Posted - 01/16/2005 : 10:39:53 PM
I'm not sure i quite get the point to this rule. Are Hitler and the Nazi regime too sensitive a subject to talk about? Has anyone on the boards here ever referred to the Nazis or Hitler in a way that could offend somebody? |
| dan p. |
Posted - 01/16/2005 : 9:43:44 PM
if you're referencing nazis and/or hilter in a political thread that doesn't have to do with nazis and/or hitler, you lose. and the thread closes. the source, no matter how credible, doesn't matter. |
| pcbTIM |
Posted - 01/16/2005 : 9:36:31 PM
quote:
Originally posted by dan p.
the rule is that in any sort of the debate on a board regarding politics, the first person to make a reference to hilter or the nazis automatically loses the argument and the thread is closed.
So I guess using the History Channel as a source is out then? |
| Zachmozach |
Posted - 01/16/2005 : 7:46:30 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Jiyra
and zach..."for their own safety"? you can't believe that?
Well I don't think Germany was actually in any danger from poland if that's what you mean, but germany did claim that as part of the reason for invading them is because poland with their strong calvary was a threat (never mind that a calvary meant shit by this time). I always use it as the example agains pre-emptive strikes. |
| Jiyra |
Posted - 01/16/2005 : 2:54:12 PM
and openly laugh at each other |
| dan p. |
Posted - 01/16/2005 : 1:24:38 PM
don't those guys fight sometimes? |
| Arthen |
Posted - 01/16/2005 : 02:44:43 AM
Well, we grumble enough and have angry comments already. We're practically a parliament! |
| thomasode |
Posted - 01/16/2005 : 02:14:00 AM
this is confusing...I have a better rule...if you have a debate you must use parlamentry procedure hahaha....that would be funny |
| Jiyra |
Posted - 01/15/2005 : 11:54:38 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Zachmozach
I'm ok with it, but I guess I'll just have to quit pointing out how Germany invaded poland pre-emptively for their own safety. Although if the debate is about germany and the Nazi's then I might not be able to abide by the rule. That and I'm never wrong.
so zach...you're a woman then, right? *hides and waits for chairs to come raining down* but seriously, hows about you just preclude said rule defier from the conversation...I mean, some good could still come out of the conversation? and zach..."for their own safety"? you can't believe that? |
| Zachmozach |
Posted - 01/15/2005 : 1:30:19 PM
I'm ok with it, but I guess I'll just have to quit pointing out how Germany invaded poland pre-emptively for their own safety. Although if the debate is about germany and the Nazi's then I might not be able to abide by the rule. That and I'm never wrong. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 01/15/2005 : 1:21:24 PM
damn it. |
| KevinLesko |
Posted - 01/15/2005 : 02:34:47 AM
You mentioned both Hitler, and the Nazi's in that post... YOU LOSE!!!...............
.........
.................
LOSER! |
|
|
