Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Civil Rights

Civil Rights Civil and Political Rights Forum - Civil rights and liberties


Thanks Tree75Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old October 18th, 2017, 08:30 AM   #81
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Georgia
Posts: 639
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordy View Post
Okay, I'm not going to quote all of your posting. I simply have some questions.

Does your whole argument rest on a single incident with two British soldiers and a letter?

Does that one incident prove that the entire British army was genocidal OR are you implying that the colonists had shared the same sentiment?

Unless I'm missing something, you seem to be of the opinion that whites are, their very nature, barbaric hatemongers that are predisposed to genocidal violence. Is that correct? I'm not accusing, just looking for clarification from what I can infer by your posts.
discollector is offline  
Old October 18th, 2017, 08:34 AM   #82
The Token Black Guy
 
Gordy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: MD
Posts: 2,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by discollector View Post
Okay, I'm not going to quote all of your posting. I simply have some questions.

Does your whole argument rest on a single incident with two British soldiers and a letter?

Does that one incident prove that the entire British army was genocidal OR are you implying that the colonists had shared the same sentiment?

Unless I'm missing something, you seem to be of the opinion that whites are, their very nature, barbaric hatemongers that are predisposed to genocidal violence. Is that correct? I'm not accusing, just looking for clarification from what I can infer by your posts.
Yes it does prove that it was intentional genocide. Europeans committed genocide against Native Americans.

It also goes against the narrative you're promoting here. American history is fucked up in a lot of ways.

Last edited by Gordy; October 18th, 2017 at 08:42 AM.
Gordy is offline  
Old October 18th, 2017, 10:22 AM   #83
Senior Member
 
Quigley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Bakersfield
Posts: 1,424
Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
Why Were Confederate Monuments Built? : NPR

Some people proclaim these monuments are "historical" but ignore the reality of what history they are meant to celebrate.
:mad
Southern Poverty Law Center

End of story, they are as biased as they can be, sorry.
Quigley is offline  
Old October 18th, 2017, 10:32 AM   #84
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Georgia
Posts: 639
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordy View Post
Yes it does prove that it was intentional genocide. Europeans committed genocide against Native Americans.

It also goes against the narrative you're promoting here. American history is fucked up in a lot of ways.
Well you seem to be making a claim that I'm only trying to confirm. Yo accuse me of a narrative; I'm not accusing you.

What I'm reading is that based upon two soldiers doing something that may (and I say may) have violated British military standards of the era, you state unequivocally that proved genocide against Native Americans (sic.) Allow me an analogy:

Several years ago, a LEO (Law Enforcement Organization) had those under his immediate command spread rumors about me. Then this gentleman concocted a plan to knock down my door, kill me, and claim that I resisted arrest. The plan was somehow exposed and it made the local papers. The guy who cost me my job and put my life in danger was dealt with. So, I'm wondering if that particular LEO group that tolerated that action is all corrupt OR could there be good guys in the mix??? Are all LEOs bad based upon my experience? Somebody tipped the media off.

You're talking about an incident and there is little follow up. In my case, I don't have the right answers. In yours, there is a lot of loose ends.

How did the story become public knowledge? When did it become public knowledge? Did anyone complain or seek legal redress at the time?

A single event, in my mind, does not prove your case... unless there is a lot more to it.
discollector is offline  
Old October 18th, 2017, 10:45 AM   #85
The Token Black Guy
 
Gordy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: MD
Posts: 2,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by discollector View Post
Well you seem to be making a claim that I'm only trying to confirm. Yo accuse me of a narrative; I'm not accusing you.

What I'm reading is that based upon two soldiers doing something that may (and I say may) have violated British military standards of the era, you state unequivocally that proved genocide against Native Americans (sic.) Allow me an analogy:

Several years ago, a LEO (Law Enforcement Organization) had those under his immediate command spread rumors about me. Then this gentleman concocted a plan to knock down my door, kill me, and claim that I resisted arrest. The plan was somehow exposed and it made the local papers. The guy who cost me my job and put my life in danger was dealt with. So, I'm wondering if that particular LEO group that tolerated that action is all corrupt OR could there be good guys in the mix??? Are all LEOs bad based upon my experience? Somebody tipped the media off.

You're talking about an incident and there is little follow up. In my case, I don't have the right answers. In yours, there is a lot of loose ends.

How did the story become public knowledge? When did it become public knowledge? Did anyone complain or seek legal redress at the time?

A single event, in my mind, does not prove your case... unless there is a lot more to it.
That is a poor analogy. It's so poor it's almost funny.

How could Native Americans sue the ppl they were at war with?

The "follow-up" was that millions of ppl were killed because of an intentional campaign of genocide. Because that was literally the plan.
Thanks from tristanrobin
Gordy is offline  
Old October 18th, 2017, 11:09 AM   #86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Georgia
Posts: 639
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordy View Post
That is a poor analogy. It's so poor it's almost funny.

How could Native Americans sue the ppl they were at war with?

The "follow-up" was that millions of ppl were killed because of an intentional campaign of genocide. Because that was literally the plan.
Gordy,

Do you realize that every time I've asked you a question, you have responded with a smart ass response to try and belittle and demean me? I was just on another thread wherein it was shut down when a liberal kept doing the same thing, it became the focal point of the thread, not the OP.

You liberals are so insecure that you cannot engage in honest dialogue without personal commentary. What's up with that?

You missed the point about my analogy (it didn't have much to do with wars as it did about assigning blame for an event.) I can't be held responsible for your lack of reading skills. Still want to be nasty toward each other?

All you have is a letter between two soldiers and you jump from that to an intentional campaign of genocide. I'm failing to see how you think you've proven your case. Furthermore, the British and the colonists fought each other. So, I'm not seeing how the British and colonists were in cahoots and waging a war of genocide on Native Americans (sic.) Do you think you can cobble together a rational response without the personal remarks?
discollector is offline  
Old October 18th, 2017, 11:18 AM   #87
The Token Black Guy
 
Gordy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: MD
Posts: 2,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by discollector View Post
Gordy,

Do you realize that every time I've asked you a question, you have responded with a smart ass response to try and belittle and demean me? I was just on another thread wherein it was shut down when a liberal kept doing the same thing, it became the focal point of the thread, not the OP.

You liberals are so insecure that you cannot engage in honest dialogue without personal commentary. What's up with that?

You missed the point about my analogy (it didn't have much to do with wars as it did about assigning blame for an event.) I can't be held responsible for your lack of reading skills. Still want to be nasty toward each other?

All you have is a letter between two soldiers and you jump from that to an intentional campaign of genocide. I'm failing to see how you think you've proven your case. Furthermore, the British and the colonists fought each other. So, I'm not seeing how the British and colonists were in cahoots and waging a war of genocide on Native Americans (sic.) Do you think you can cobble together a rational response without the personal remarks?
What are you talking about? I haven't insulted you at all. All I said was that you used a false analogy.

Yes, the letter does prove that the British intentionally gave Native Americans smallpox. That's literally what the letter says.

The colonists and the British hadn't always fought each other either. America was a British colony at one point.
Gordy is offline  
Old October 18th, 2017, 11:53 AM   #88
forgot my old user name
 
right to left's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,743
Quote:
Originally Posted by handydude View Post
Oh. So you're going to tell me that 90% of the natives died off because of White people intentionally handing out infected blankets?
Did I say that? I mentioned several times about the massacres and forced winter marches of many tribes into desolate lands where they were left mostly to starve. It was all part of a deliberate ethnic cleansing for colonial enterprizes...which is why I get sickened by the narrative continually smuggled in that indian dieoffs happened by accident...because natives all died off from white man's diseases, and then the colonists ventured into empty lands!


Quote:
US policies and actions related to Indigenous peoples, though often termed “racist” or “discriminatory,” are rarely depicted as what they are: classic cases of imperialism and a particular form of colonialism—settler colonialism. As anthropologist Patrick Wolfe writes, “The question of genocide is never far from discussions of settler colonialism. Land is life—or, at least, land is necessary for life.”i The history of the United States is a history of settler colonialism.

The extension of the United States from sea to shining sea was the intention and design of the country’s founders. “Free” land was the magnet that attracted European settlers. After the war for independence but preceding the writing of the US Constitution, the Continental Congress produced the Northwest Ordinance. This was the first law of the incipient republic, revealing the motive for those desiring independence. It was the blueprint for gobbling up the British-protected Indian Territory (“Ohio Country”) on the other side of the Appalachians and Alleghenies. Britain had made settlement there illegal with the Proclamation of 1763.

In 1801, President Jefferson aptly described the new settler state’s intentions for horizontal and vertical continental expansion, stating: “However our present interests may restrain us within our own limits, it is impossible not to look forward to distant times, when our rapid multiplication will expand itself beyond those limits and cover the whole northern, if not the southern continent, with a people speaking the same language, governed in similar form by similar laws.” This vision of manifest destiny found form a few years later in the Monroe Doctrine, signaling the intention of annexing or dominating former Spanish colonial territories in the Americas and the Pacific, which would be put into practice during the rest of the century.

The form of colonialism that the Indigenous peoples of North America have experienced was modern from the beginning: the expansion of European corporations, backed by government armies, into foreign areas, with subsequent expropriation of lands and resources. Settler colonialism requires a genocidal policy. Native nations and communities, while struggling to maintain fundamental values and collectivity, have from the beginning resisted modern colonialism using both defensive and offensive techniques, including the modern forms of armed resistance of national liberation movements and what now is called terrorism. In every instance they have fought and continue to fight for survival as peoples. The objective of US authorities was to terminate their existence as peoples—not as random individuals. This is the very definition of modern genocide.

The objective of US colonialist authorities was to terminate their existence as peoples—not as random individuals. This is the very definition of modern genocide as contrasted with premodern instances of extreme violence that did not have the goal of extinction. The United States as a socioeconomic and political entity is a result of this centuries-long and ongoing colonial process. Modern Indigenous nations and communities are societies formed by their resistance to colonialism, through which they have carried their practices and histories. It is breathtaking, but no miracle, that they have survived as peoples.

Settler-colonialism requires violence or the threat of violence to attain its goals, which then forms the foundation of the United States’ system. People do not hand over their land, resources, children, and futures without a fight, and that fight is met with violence. In employing the force necessary to accomplish its expansionist goals, a colonizing regime institutionalizes violence. The notion that settler-indigenous conflict is an inevitable product of cultural differences and misunderstandings, or that violence was committed equally by the colonized and the colonizer, blurs the nature of the historical processes. Euro-American colonialism, an aspect of the capitalist economic globalization, had from its beginnings a genocidal tendency.

So, what constitutes genocide? My colleague on the panel, Gary Clayton Anderson, in his recent book, “Ethnic Cleansing and the Indian,” argues: “Genocide will never become a widely accepted characterization for what happened in North America, because large numbers of Indians survived and because policies of mass murder on a scale similar to events in central Europe, Cambodia, or Rwanda were never implemented.”ii There are fatal errors in this assessment.

The term “genocide” was coined following the Shoah, or Holocaust, and its prohibition was enshrined in the United Nations convention presented in 1948 and adopted in 1951: the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The convention is not retroactive but is applicable to US-Indigenous relations since 1988, when the US Senate ratified it. The genocide convention is an essential tool for historical analysis of the effects of colonialism in any era, and particularly in US history. .................................................. .................................................. ...........................................
Yes, Native Americans Were the Victims of Genocide | History News Network
right to left is offline  
Old October 18th, 2017, 12:04 PM   #89
Senior Member
 
Quigley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Bakersfield
Posts: 1,424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordy View Post
What are you talking about? I haven't insulted you at all. All I said was that you used a false analogy.

Yes, the letter does prove that the British intentionally gave Native Americans smallpox. That's literally what the letter says.

The colonists and the British hadn't always fought each other either. America was a British colony at one point.
That is a poor analogy. It's so poor it's almost funny.

You pull this crap all of the time and then feign ignorance just you did here. Answer his question or pound sand.
Quigley is offline  
Old October 18th, 2017, 12:05 PM   #90
Senior Member
 
Quigley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Bakersfield
Posts: 1,424
Quote:
Originally Posted by right to left View Post
Did I say that? I mentioned several times about the massacres and forced winter marches of many tribes into desolate lands where they were left mostly to starve. It was all part of a deliberate ethnic cleansing for colonial enterprizes...which is why I get sickened by the narrative continually smuggled in that indian dieoffs happened by accident...because natives all died off from white man's diseases, and then the colonists ventured into empty lands!



Yes, Native Americans Were the Victims of Genocide | History News Network
American's aren't taught the truth about much of anything. One of the WORST tactics we used was the deliberate killing off of the Buffalo.
Thanks from right to left
Quigley is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Civil Rights

Tags
built, confederate, future, statues, supremacist, white



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Confederate Statues Removed in Baltimore and Durham Gordy Current Events 232 September 6th, 2017 09:20 AM
Warrants Issued For White Supremacist Sissy Camelot Current Events 26 August 28th, 2017 03:57 PM
Why is there a movement to remove Confederate statues, memorials, etc.? johnwk Current Events 80 July 22nd, 2017 09:01 AM
White supremacist groups see Trump bump LongWinded Current Events 4 December 10th, 2015 02:38 PM
Anonymous Links Ron Paul To White Supremacist Groups skrekk Politicians 30 February 3rd, 2012 09:35 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.