Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Can't speak for factsplease, but I'd be happy if folks like you would be less obtuse and defensive about the whole thing. That would be a start.
Uh uh, well thanks for being the only one on here to actually post what you want.
How am I being defensive? I'll openly say that some white people in the past were diabolical. I've said that multiple times on this thread. Now, am I supposed to just let people rant and imply things like there is something inherently diabolical about white people?
You think the world would look the same had Genghis Khan gotten a machine gun or a nuclear weapon?
Apparently some people do.
For god's sake the Art of War was written by a China-man... The fact that the Art of war is taught in military schools all over the world just doesn't sink in with these anti-history people...
Yep, but bringing up people like Ghengis Khan or Chairman Mao leads these posters to obfuscate and try to claim we're just talking about America.
No, tribal wars suggest that there was a moral reasoning behind their actions. It wasn't killing for the sake of killing. It was done out of a (misguided) sense of honor and/or moral reckoning...not just we want to enslave your people to grow crops to get rich.
That statement makes no f**king sense... There were plenty of tribal wars in the Americas or Africa or Europe or Asia where the losers ended up enslaved(or massacred) and their land taken by the victors. Conquest is usually the point of most wars.
What do you think the Aztecs vs. neighboring tribes was like a friendly football match?
The moral reasoning was usually that "Our people are superior to those other people, and thus we are the one's blessed by god(s) to go forth and conquer." The tribes or nations that had the technological or numerical or other strategic advantage usually ended up conquering their neighbors if they could. Some had land empires, while others on islands or more isolated would go further abroad. But it's almost always about material gain.
Let the African countries do the work; us white people don't owe them squat. Maybe their new "massas" will be the Chinese? China is looking around for new resources and they don't play nice, they do understand force tho so messing with the US ain't smart.
I'll bet if South Africa pulls a "Zimbabwe"; SA will fall to pieces and die.
See that's the problem. (Some) White people come in and screw up...then scratch their heads about why the folks can't get it together. You don't get to screw up a nation and then shake your head about the ruin the country has become.
That's similar to blacks in the US. We're mistreated for hundreds of years, get full rights less than 50 years ago. And many whites look at blacks and wonder why we can't "get it together more quickly". Like I said, you can't eff up and then scratch your head in confusion.
Location: where people are either too stupid to leave or too stuck to move
3,982 posts, read 6,687,072 times
Reputation: 3689
White people won't let that happen . They'll just come up with a way to repopulate again . Whether it be manifest destiny, weapons of mass destruction ,apartheid , a holocaust, genocide or whatever old methods once used
White people won't let that happen . They'll just come up with a way to repopulate again . Whether it be manifest destiny, weapons of mass destruction ,apartheid , a holocaust, genocide or whatever old methods once used
Come on, you're just seeing history as you want to see it. How do you know the moral reasoning behind why Africans and Natives killed each other? LMAO. White people tried using the lame excuse of "morality" to excuse their actions as well-that doesn't make it any better. Saying that Africans had some kind of moral excuse to their killings is just grasping for straws.
Ask yourself: what's the proportion of white people that were slave owners that raped and enslaved their own children? Duh, that's some evil stuff but that's gotta be .001% of the white population!
I did qualify my statement saying it was misguided. Tribal wars are much different from the behavior of whites in the US. If you want to think differently, that's your business.
.001%. Not even close. But of course, perversion is an issue among some white men, even today.
The anti-white posters on here are just grasping for straws now! Trying to claim that some murder/enslavement is worse than others is pretty pathetic. The day when we can all get together and agree that ALL of our human natures have held us back will be step one to healing. But instead, you have a lot of angry people trying to make sweeping generalizations and judgments.
No, tribal wars suggest that there was a moral reasoning behind their actions. It wasn't killing for the sake of killing. It was done out of a (misguided) sense of honor and/or moral reckoning...not just we want to enslave your people to grow crops to get rich.
Takes an evil mofo to try to find a way around being a deadbeat dad to the slave you raped (you know that whole "child follows the mother" thing). What type of evil degenerate enslaves their own child?
Contrary to Brian Ferguson's claim that such [inter-tribal] slaughters were a consequence of contact with modern European or other civilizations, archaeology yields evidence of prehistoric massacres more severe than any recounted in ethnography. For example, at Crow Creek in South Dakota, archaeologists found a mass grave containing the remains of more than 500 men, women, and children who had been slaughtered, scalped, and mutilated during an attack on their village a century and a half before Columbus's arrival (ca. A.D. 1325).
The attack seems to have occurred just when the village's fortifications were being rebuilt. All the houses were burned, and most of the inhabitants were murdered. This death toll represented more than 60 percent of the village's population, estimated from the number of houses to have been about 800. The survivors appear to have been primarily young women, as their skeletons are underrepresented among the bones; if so, they were probably taken away as captives. Certainly, the site was deserted for some time after the attack because the bodies evidently remained exposed to scavenging animals for a few weeks before burial. In other words, this whole village was annihilated in a single attack and never reoccupied. -War Before Civilization
by Lawrence H. Keeley
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
