"it's all their fault I am leaving"... BBbbaahHHhhhhh - Page 28

PursuitOfHappinessParty · 05-17-2008, 01:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillCosby

So then when we expand it is true & just & when CHina or Russia do it it is bad & Imperialism..........

Is there one set of rules for all... OR one for us & another for "them".........???

Well, you were quoting my post yet failed to read it. You are reiterating my point that the U.S. is just the same as other countries - past and present. I never assigned a blame or pass to any of them.

As to your in-post aside, mexico is itself an expansion scenario unless you think those are Aztecs crossing the Rio Grande. Canada also had indigenous native populations, but were expansioned out of business by the English and the French.

There were French forces in La as well as Fla, as well as full Englsih forts - ALL after the revolutionary war was finished. The new U.S. was at the brink of war with both countries and no European or U.S. claims had been made of lands to the West.

PursuitOfHappinessParty · 05-17-2008, 01:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PursuitOfHappinessParty

Everyone expands. The Native Americans exanded and fought tribal and ethnic wars everybit as much as their European counterparts. Also comparative to their pacific rim counterparts

, too.

There is also the fact that if the Americans hadn't expanded, the French, English (who still had forts here), and Spanish certainly would have.
The original colonies were themselves land taken from the Native Americans, so the expansion was happening via Europe from day one. I would also venture that European treatment (taken from examples of the original settlements) would've been far worse as there were pro-Native American elements in the American government from day one.

European nations did expand, many times in their history (We Band of Brothers). These expansions settled into borders only when differing nations had the ability to protect themselves, a pre-nuclear MAD.

This doesn't excuse what America did, or how. I'm just saying there are certain realities of the human condition as well as the natural growing pains of the world in history. Every nation has a history of domination and expansion, either as protagonist or as victim.

Safe to say that I agree: America is normal by comparison.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillCosby

So then when we expand it is true & just & when CHina or Russia do it it is bad & Imperialism..........

Is there one set of rules for all... OR one for us & another for "them".........???

I also noted that you changed the wording in my post you were replying to. Don't quite understand the motivation for that, so here it is in its unaltered entire form.

PursuitOfHappinessParty · 05-17-2008, 01:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kana

True, the history of mankind is a list of shifting borders. My real point here is that if our positions on national expansion are to mean anything, they need to be consistent. We should apply the same standard to every government dispassionately. The idea that the American government is somehow special or different is really at the heart of not only this debate, but also debates about the Iraq War and our current foreign policy. What is Bush's global democratic revolution but Manifest Destiny applied to the world stage?

Agreed.
It is, however, my opinion that you have to give nations that expanded in earlier times more of a break. To compare current day scenarios (with technology, information exchange, globalization,and settled borders) with modern governments to expansionism by earlier nations over indigenous tribal populations isn't realistic. The human race (as a whole) has come along ways since the late 1700s.

Rome's conquerings led to unprecedented peace and prosperity. Laws, aquaducts, roads, and education flourished where it wouldn't have before. Native Americans wouldn't have created the technology we see today, IMHO. Its not a justification as much as an acceptence of the reality of the situation.

Invading Iraq just doesn't compare.

PursuitOfHappinessParty · 05-17-2008, 02:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RK77

Genocide however was not the mindset of the native americans, nor the africans nor the chinese (as far as my limited knowledge of them goes).

I disagree in part. Various native american tribes hated each other, pre-market share in action. They didn't really have the mindset of genocide, but that's playing loose with tribal strategies. They didn't want other tribes removed from the earth, just the spot that was in question. Africa? Nothing about Africa history persuades me that they don't hold true to the norm as well. China is unique, most of their genocide has been against themselves and especially their women. Had they moved outside the Chen philosophies and become more industrial then all bets would be off.

Quote:

Can you name ANY race on earth besides the white man who methodically exterminated others prior to 1900?

It's a matter of opportunity combined with where you draw your line at. European whites came of age when travel (boats, wagons) and industry combined with technology (warfare) opened up the world. They came of age when the opportunity for expansion was ripe.

I could go into the Moors or Huns......

Quote:

Pursuit! Do me a favor and reread this paragraph. Are you suggesting there were NO pro native american spaniards or french? Moreover---are you honestly suggesting that thus the US did the Native Americans a favor?

I didn't even remotely suggest anysuch thing. I suggested, and my reading and take on history support, that compared to the Spaniards (Happy Columbus Day), French (French Indian war), and Englsih (Settlements) showed no respect or regard for the native americans.

The forefather's, however, wrote many things about various native american governments. I believe it was the Iroquis government that had some influence on both John Adams and Thomas Jefferson for OUR government. Also, as with emancipation, there were many whites who vehemently were against the U.S. government's treatment of native americans. So comparatively speaking, YES the U.S. was much more friendly to the native americans.

Does that make our treatment of them classified as 'good'? No. But from the POV of that time in human government evolution, not so bad. Don't make the mistake of using your 2008 American POV to broadbrush historical world events.

Quote:

WHERE IS THE REAL PURSUIT????

Fighting to keep everything evil in the history of history from being laid upon the backs of white Americans.

Quote:

I'd have to disagree Pursuit. The ends justifies the means is a moral concept that was pretty unique to Europeans--- I am pretty sure of this. THAT was/is abnormal!

Moors, Huns, Japan circa 1930s. I do agree that they've done the lion's share, but as I stated before that that has more to do with the timing of history than arian genetics being evil.

BillCosby · 05-17-2008, 05:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CosmicRocker

LOL nothing personal either.
And nothing good to say about the USA.

now i know where you are coming from,but that is no surprise.

lol......... We cool................

Believe what you want......... It is what you do best............ & Music perhaps...lol

Malkavian · 05-17-2008, 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RK77

True but then how much DISRESPECT did they show would be the issue. NO other culture codified the denial of the humanity of other human beings.

Racism was a term invented by the europeans---the concept existed in antiquity. The issue is NOT whether racism existed or did not exist. The issue is how societies dealt with it.

To need to equivocate and avoid the information to keep from having to come to grips with the differences is not really such a great idea--- but if you want to go through life telling yourself it all okay because others had "slaves" too---that's fine---it's typical---and it is fine.

Not really... i don't think it's ok... just ordinary.

Kana · 05-17-2008, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PursuitOfHappinessParty

Invading Iraq just doesn't compare.

My point in bringing up Iraq was not that the actions are comparable, but that the ideology behind our invasion and the ideology behind the Westward expansion of the US are comparable. Manifest Destiny stated that God had appointed the US government to spread Democracy to the Pacific Coast as a great experiment in liberty, as O'Sullivan called it. Many believers in the current foreign policy think that either God or merely our natural superiority has appointed us to spread Democracy to the world, starting with the Middle East.

The neo-conservative foreign policy is essentially Manifest Destiny applied to the world stage. Both ideologies carry the pretence of spreading freedom, which makes them slightly different from the good old British policy of, "We know best how to run your country, so we'll take it and run it for you. It's for your own good, so shut your gob."

Kana · 05-17-2008, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CosmicRocker

The snooty Puritans arrived, and landed on Plymouth Rock, but nearly starved to death, as they couldn't dig thru the rocky soil to plant potatoes, so they headed south.

The next colony at Jamestown died out because all they did was smoke tobacco the Indians turned them on to,
and never thought of putting stores away for winter.

So they headed south, where it was way too hot to do anything, so they all sat around and drank rum,
until they got so thirsty, and looked for the Fountain of Youth, so they could get rid of heir hangovers.

Finally The Great White Hope John O'Sullivan said.
'It's Manifest this whole thing is a bummer, so lets head west, or our Destiny will be to die drunk here."

So the headed out thru the mountains, and became the first ignorant white boys,,and hooked up with some Natives.
The natives showed these dumb hicks how to plant corn, and farm.
But they used up all the corn making moonshine, and got drunk and killed all the Natives.
The first ignorant white boys.

Since they needed more than corn liquor to live on they headed out to the prairies and found buffalo.
They stuffed themselves with buffalo, and saw the natives lived off the land, so they killed all the buffalo.
This drove all the natives into reservations, where they were cold, cause they had no buffalo,
so the settlers gave them smallpox infected blankets to keep warm with. And it killed all the natives.

Having run out of buffalo, and natives to kill, they headed thru the Rockie Mountains. where most of them froze to death, or were burried in avalanches.

Since this was no place to call home, they heard of gold out west. and fiqured if they got enough gold,
they could buy condos in Miami, and stay warm and drunk down there.

So they headed to Calif., but there was little gold.
Someone came up with the idea of making a movie about all this, and figured the folks back east would get a laugh,
seeing just how dumb they were with all this travel but no gold and that's how Hollywood came into being.

The Mexicans got jealous they never got any gold, so the crossed the Rio Grand to steal the white mans cattle..
But they couldn't swim and drowned, and never really had a chance.

The canadians were too busy playing hockey, that they never wanted to leave the ice up north, and that's how the borders became set.

Okay, I'll hand it to you. That's funny.

Environment Man · 05-17-2008, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kana

My point in bringing up Iraq was not that the actions are comparable, but that the ideology behind our invasion and the ideology behind the Westward expansion of the US are comparable. Manifest Destiny stated that God had appointed the US government to spread Democracy to the Pacific Coast as a great experiment in liberty, as O'Sullivan called it. Many believers in the current foreign policy think that either God or merely our natural superiority has appointed us to spread Democracy to the world, starting with the Middle East.

The neo-conservative foreign policy is essentially Manifest Destiny applied to the world stage. Both ideologies carry the pretence of spreading freedom, which makes them slightly different from the good old British policy of, "We know best how to run your country, so we'll take it and run it for you. It's for your own good, so shut your gob."

Well said Kana. Liberals are advocates of Manifest Destiny too.

PursuitOfHappinessParty · 05-17-2008, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kana

My point in bringing up Iraq was not that the actions are comparable, but that the ideology behind our invasion and the ideology behind the Westward expansion of the US are comparable. Manifest Destiny stated that God had appointed the US government to spread Democracy to the Pacific Coast as a great experiment in liberty, as O'Sullivan called it. Many believers in the current foreign policy think that either God or merely our natural superiority has appointed us to spread Democracy to the world, starting with the Middle East.

The neo-conservative foreign policy is essentially Manifest Destiny applied to the world stage. Both ideologies carry the pretence of spreading freedom, which makes them slightly different from the good old British policy of, "We know best how to run your country, so we'll take it and run it for you. It's for your own good, so shut your gob."

Nicely put. I agree.
It's all in the labeling. Using God and Democracy to cloak expansionism and profiteering.
The expansion westward really was a case of destiny, nature of man to expand. My garden looks pale when I'm looking at millions of acres.
Iraq is a small number of carpetbaggers in the guise of American representatives.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode