Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 6/16/03 10:25 PM, cavscout wrote:

Exactly where did you dream these numbers up? I would love to see some facts to back this up instead of this fabricated numbers you dreamed up.

As it turns out that 2 million was the jews in countries that were at war with Nazi Germany, Italy and Japan. It excludes other countries. The correct number is 6 million. Roughly the same number of individuals killed under the colonial regimes of North America.

As a member of the Eastern Band of the Cherokee, I can state that the yes the Native Americans were murdered and robbed by the english. But, the spainards killed 3 of us compared to 1 by the english. BTW, the most my people ever numbered in the 1800's were 65,000. That includes the Western Band, too.

I await your reply.....

Spaniards, the English the French and other races occupied America at that time and they eventually formed the United States of America. The Cherokee, they were the one of the races to whom the Indian removal act was directed, you don't think that was racist that Andrew Jackson removed Natives from Alabama and Missisipi because he claimed that they were polluting the civilized and christian communities so he sent the Cherokee to the trail of tears? He did that because he loved his country so much that any threat to the progress of it should be eliminated.

At 6/17/03 12:30 AM, jimsween wrote:

I'm not saying it wasnt a horrible thing to do, but just because alot of people died doesnt make it a genocide. If that were true than the atomic bomb was genocide and basically most wars were genocide.

Well then genius, If that wasn't a genocide, then please enlighten us by giving us one example of what it is. JUST ONE. If that isn't a genocide then nothing is.

At 6/16/03 10:14 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

These two examples I can't agree with...when I think of a Christian, I think of a group of people who rather zealously believe themselves to be right in all things. I DO NOT think of them as Indian-Killers...it wasn't just Christians who did that...AMERICANS did that...and I believe that is how people view it. I also do not see racists as synonymous with patriotism...I don't know where you get these ideas from...and certainly you're entitled to you're opinions, but that's all these things are YOU'RE PERSONAL OPINIONS, and you state them as though there fact. THAT is my problem with you're arguments here.

Actually, it didn't matter if it was Americans of Canadians of Spaniards that killed Natives, they were all Christians. In America, Native Americans were hung 13 at a time in honor of Jesus Christ and his apostles. The Natives in South America were read this declaration in Spanish (which they had no hope of understanding)

"We ask and require you to acknowledge the church as the ruler and superior of the whole world and the high priest called pope and in his name the king of Spain as lords of this land. If you submit we shall receive you in all love and charity and shall leave you, your wives and children and your lands free without servitude, but if you do not submit we shall powerfully enter into your country and shall make war against you, we shall take you and your wives and your children and shall make slaves of them and we shall take away your goods and shall do you all the harm and damage we can."

Ok, so these examples refer to religion so I guess I coiuld include the love of one's religion in my thread. When people take things like religion and patriotism way too far things like this happen.

At 6/17/03 07:14 PM, nailbomb wrote:

At 6/17/03 12:30 AM, jimsween wrote:

I'm not saying it wasnt a horrible thing to do, but just because alot of people died doesnt make it a genocide. If that were true than the atomic bomb was genocide and basically most wars were genocide.

Well then genius, If that wasn't a genocide, then please enlighten us by giving us one example of what it is. JUST ONE. If that isn't a genocide then nothing is.

Hitler and the jews, saddam and the kurds (sort of unless he was just doing it to test the weapons and had no problem with the kurds), the stuff that milosavich did, basically intentially attempting to wipe out an entire race. Because it was never the intent to wipe out the race (only to get thier land) it was not genocide.

At 6/17/03 07:22 PM, jimsween wrote:

Hitler and the jews, saddam and the kurds (sort of unless he was just doing it to test the weapons and had no problem with the kurds), the stuff that milosavich did, basically intentially attempting to wipe out an entire race. Because it was never the intent to wipe out the race (only to get thier land) it was not genocide.

Now I shall gave you a taste of your own medicine.
no! no no! Hitler never planned to wipe out the Jews, Gypsies and homosexuals were included in the non-genocide and he also killed millions of Russians and Americans and English and British and other races. He was only eliminating those in his way of world domination so therefore it is not genocide. As for Saddam and the Kurds, "it was never the intent to wipe out the race (only to get thier land) it was not genocide."

I always thought the term 'Genocide' means the intent to kill an entire Ethnic group, in a systematic and organised fashion...I don't know of another word that differentiates between sucessful and unsucessful genocide (if you can apply the word 'sucess' to atrocities).

I think killing 6 million Jews constitutes genocide, as there was no reason or gain to do it, no land, no major resources or any economic gain.It was done purely due to their Ethnicity (which encompasses race, religion and customs).

Once killing is Goverment policy, be it to gain in economic terms or not, i think it is genocide.I even think the withholding of resources, thus causing mass death thru starvation is genocide.

When a country has a majority of one Ethnic group, then i think it follows that Patriotism can lead to Racism, if the country has imperialist tendencies, but if the country is just peaceful yet has pride in a Patriotic form it is ok.

At 6/17/03 07:51 PM, Sophia_7 wrote:
When a country has a majority of one Ethnic group, then i think it follows that Patriotism can lead to Racism, if the country has imperialist tendencies, but if the country is just peaceful yet has pride in a Patriotic form it is ok.

Does anyone know any countries with a peaceful past?

At 6/17/03 08:19 PM, nailbomb wrote:

Does anyone know any countries with a peaceful past?

Luxembourg maybe
Figi probably

At 6/17/03 07:30 PM, nailbomb wrote:

At 6/17/03 07:22 PM, jimsween wrote:

Hitler and the jews, saddam and the kurds (sort of unless he was just doing it to test the weapons and had no problem with the kurds), the stuff that milosavich did, basically intentially attempting to wipe out an entire race. Because it was never the intent to wipe out the race (only to get thier land) it was not genocide.

Now I shall gave you a taste of your own medicine.
no! no no! Hitler never planned to wipe out the Jews, Gypsies and homosexuals were included in the non-genocide and he also killed millions of Russians and Americans and English and British and other races. He was only eliminating those in his way of world domination so therefore it is not genocide. As for Saddam and the Kurds, "it was never the intent to wipe out the race (only to get thier land) it was not genocide."

He never wanted to get thier land, he purposely wanted to eliminate all jew, he himself admitted to that. Nice try but that doesnt even work. And more importantly, the jews never fought back the natives did. Which would more likely classify it as a war.

At 6/17/03 09:28 PM, jimsween wrote:

He never wanted to get thier land, he purposely wanted to eliminate all jew, he himself admitted to that. Nice try but that doesnt even work. And more importantly, the jews never fought back the natives did. Which would more likely classify it as a war.

What about Gypsies? Also, the Natives had weapons used for hunting while Jews had nothing.

At 6/17/03 09:35 PM, nailbomb wrote:

At 6/17/03 09:28 PM, jimsween wrote:

He never wanted to get thier land, he purposely wanted to eliminate all jew, he himself admitted to that. Nice try but that doesnt even work. And more importantly, the jews never fought back the natives did. Which would more likely classify it as a war.

What about Gypsies? Also, the Natives had weapons used for hunting while Jews had nothing.

Hitler didnt like the Gypsies either, he also wanted to kill them all. And I find it laughable that you still belive the old stereotypes taht all the indains had was bows and arrows, that might ahvebeen so when the settler first came but soon enough all the tribes had guns. And that still doesnt help your argument, many jews most likely had weapons but seeing as how there was no fighting there wasnt a war between the two, there was much fighting between the indians and settlers in fact there WAS a war (the french indian war) which was fought for land, which would even classify all later battles with the indians as acts of war. There was never a time that we put indians in gas chambers every time it was always either in a battle or through an act of war.

At 6/17/03 08:19 PM, nailbomb wrote:

Does anyone know any countries with a peaceful past?

Switzerland has been pretty peaceful, Canada dosen't have too many black marks on it's record either.

Again, I understand, and agree with the points you make about patriotism and religion potentially leading to atrocitie and genocide...but my problem continues to be that you seem to feel that this is the case the MAJORITY of the time...and I just don't know that I can ever agree with that. Yes, I agree that we have seen some truly horrible things come from these concepts, but I think we've also seen wonderful things as well (The religious works of art and beauty such as the Cisteen (spelling?) Chapel, and the unity countrys display in times of national tragedy and crisis) I guess the point to be seen in all of it is this: Human beings are capable of creating ideas that lead to wonderful acts and works of beauty and enrichment, but in the wrong hands, those same ideas can lead to corruption, death, and horror. Their are two sides to every coin, I guess that's the best way to sum it all up from where I sit.

At 6/17/03 08:19 PM, nailbomb wrote:

Does anyone know any countries with a peaceful past?

Switzerland has been pretty peaceful, Canada dosen't have too many black marks on it's record either.

Again, I understand, and agree with the points you make about patriotism and religion potentially leading to atrocitie and genocide...but my problem continues to be that you seem to feel that this is the case the MAJORITY of the time...and I just don't know that I can ever agree with that. Yes, I agree that we have seen some truly horrible things come from these concepts, but I think we've also seen wonderful things as well (The religious works of art and beauty such as the Cisteen (spelling?) Chapel, and the unity countrys display in times of national tragedy and crisis) I guess the point to be seen in all of it is this: Human beings are capable of creating ideas that lead to wonderful acts and works of beauty and enrichment, but in the wrong hands, those same ideas can lead to corruption, death, and horror. Their are two sides to every coin, I guess that's the best way to sum it all up from where I sit.

ack, sorry for the double post...the wrath of the errors strikes again!

At 6/17/03 10:14 PM, jimsween wrote:

Hitler didnt like the Gypsies either, he also wanted to kill them all. And I find it laughable that you still belive the old stereotypes taht all the indains had was bows and arrows, that might ahvebeen so when the settler first came but soon enough all the tribes had guns. And that still doesnt help your argument, many jews most likely had weapons but seeing as how there was no fighting there wasnt a war between the two, there was much fighting between the indians and settlers in fact there WAS a war (the french indian war) which was fought for land, which would even classify all later battles with the indians as acts of war. There was never a time that we put indians in gas chambers every time it was always either in a battle or through an act of war.

First of all, I never wrote "bow and arrow", I wrote that they had weapons. Jews did not have weapons, they peacefuly lived in houses, just like the Kurds and Armenians and Cambodians. Native Americans had a chance to fight back because this wasn't done in 12 years like WWII the complete systematic destruction of their land and their way of living took hundreds of years because they had the chance to flee the ennemy, regroup and fight back later.

Answer me this Jimsween, what about the thousands of Native Americans that were killed before and after the war? Why weren't they allowed to live outside their reserve? Why were they excluded from "the civilized and Christian society"? They weren't gassed but they were hung 13 at a time or burned alive, Columbus even fed Natives to his dogs. The south American Natives offered no resistance because:
A. They had no weapons nor no knowledge of what a weapon was.
B. Those who did have weapons though the spaniards were quetzalcoatl (he was pale) which had prophesiced that he would come back.

At 6/17/03 11:03 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

Switzerland has been pretty peaceful, Canada dosen't have too many black marks on it's record either.

Canada, oh dear. My home and native land.

1872 B.C. joined Canada, at that time the aboriginal people in the province were the majority and still had the right to vote. The first thing the new Canadian province, B.C., passed was the Qualification and Registration of Voters Act of 1872, which stripped Natives of the vote in provincial elections.

1884 90% of those involved in the commercial salmon fishery in B.C. were the First Nations. A move was launched to deny Natives commercial access to the fisheries resource.

1884 An Indian Act amendment prohibits the potlatch and sundance. The law was rescinded in 1951.

1887 The Nisga'a Nation begins pursuing its land claims 1888 Fisheries regulations restricted what Natives might do with their catch, they could fish for food but not for 'barter, sale or commerce'. The licensing system created a native labor pool for the fish canneries, which were owned by non natives.

1891 St. Joseph's Mission opened south of Williams Lake, three generations of Chilcotin, Carrier and Shuswap were taken there in an attempt to make 'good British subjects' out of them.

http://www.cariboolinks.com/ctc/history.html

America's history is even more entertaining.

Their are two sides to every coin, I guess that's the best way to sum it all up from where I sit.

True, but on which side does the coin most often land?

At 6/17/03 11:03 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

Switzerland has been pretty peaceful, Canada dosen't have too many black marks on it's record either.

Canada, oh dear. My home and native land.

1872 B.C. joined Canada, at that time the aboriginal people in the province were the majority and still had the right to vote. The first thing the new Canadian province, B.C., passed was the Qualification and Registration of Voters Act of 1872, which stripped Natives of the vote in provincial elections.

1884 90% of those involved in the commercial salmon fishery in B.C. were the First Nations. A move was launched to deny Natives commercial access to the fisheries resource.

1884 An Indian Act amendment prohibits the potlatch and sundance. The law was rescinded in 1951.

1887 The Nisga'a Nation begins pursuing its land claims 1888 Fisheries regulations restricted what Natives might do with their catch, they could fish for food but not for 'barter, sale or commerce'. The licensing system created a native labor pool for the fish canneries, which were owned by non natives.

1891 St. Joseph's Mission opened south of Williams Lake, three generations of Chilcotin, Carrier and Shuswap were taken there in an attempt to make 'good British subjects' out of them.

http://www.cariboolinks.com/ctc/history.html

America's history is even more entertaining.

Their are two sides to every coin, I guess that's the best way to sum it all up from where I sit.

True, but on which side does the coin most often land?

ACK! WHY DID IT TELL ME TO GO BACK AND TRY AGAIN? NOW THERE ARE 2 POSTS!

At 6/18/03 12:58 PM, nailbomb wrote:

At 6/17/03 10:14 PM, jimsween wrote:

Hitler didnt like the Gypsies either, he also wanted to kill them all. And I find it laughable that you still belive the old stereotypes taht all the indains had was bows and arrows, that might ahvebeen so when the settler first came but soon enough all the tribes had guns. And that still doesnt help your argument, many jews most likely had weapons but seeing as how there was no fighting there wasnt a war between the two, there was much fighting between the indians and settlers in fact there WAS a war (the french indian war) which was fought for land, which would even classify all later battles with the indians as acts of war. There was never a time that we put indians in gas chambers every time it was always either in a battle or through an act of war.

First of all, I never wrote "bow and arrow", I wrote that they had weapons. Jews did not have weapons, they peacefuly lived in houses, just like the Kurds and Armenians and Cambodians. Native Americans had a chance to fight back because this wasn't done in 12 years like WWII the complete systematic destruction of their land and their way of living took hundreds of years because they had the chance to flee the ennemy, regroup and fight back later.

You said they had weapons used for hunting, you can't use a gun (or at least the guns they had back then) for hunting.

Answer me this Jimsween, what about the thousands of Native Americans that were killed before and after the war? Why weren't they allowed to live outside their reserve? Why were they excluded from "the civilized and Christian society"? They weren't gassed but they were hung 13 at a time or burned alive, Columbus even fed Natives to his dogs.

What history books are you reading? They were always allowed to live in society and not allowing them to vote is not genocide. And there were none killed after the war without a reason, if your talking about the ones who were hanged I'll have you know during the civil war the soiux attaked cities and raped and pillaged the towns, we took 17 of them to be hanged because they killed civilians or raped women.

The south American Natives offered no resistance because:

A. They had no weapons nor no knowledge of what a weapon was.

Nice job of making stuff up, this doesnt even make sense. Every civilization has weapons.

B. Those who did have weapons though the spaniards were quetzalcoatl (he was pale) which had prophesiced that he would come back.

Again, this doesnt even make sense. Unless you are talking about when America was first discovered in which the spaniards and british killed the indians who were NOT americans because they were following orders of the queens. If your going to say they were Americans then by your logic the Americans couldnt have commited genocide on the indains because they themselves were Indians.

At 6/18/03 07:36 PM, jimsween wrote:

What history books are you reading? They were always allowed to live in society and not allowing them to vote is not genocide. And there were none killed after the war without a reason, if your talking about the ones who were hanged I'll have you know during the civil war the soiux attaked cities and raped and pillaged the towns, we took 17 of them to be hanged because they killed civilians or raped women.

Jim, what are your sources for all of those claims? It seems like you're just making things up as you go along. I have sources that back up ALL of my claims while you have none.

Nice job of making stuff up, this doesnt even make sense. Every civilization has weapons.

I SEE THAT YOU KNOW OF EVERY CIVILIZATION THAT EVER EXISTED ON THIS PLANET! SURELY YOU MUST BE A HIGHLY ACREDITED ANTHROPOLOGIST WHO TEACHES AT AN UNIVERSITY! Wait...no you're not, you're a 13 year old that assumed that every cvilization that ever existed had weapons without any proof to back that claim up.

B. Those who did have weapons though the spaniards were quetzalcoatl (he was pale) which had prophesiced that he would come back.

Again, this doesnt even make sense. Unless you are talking about when America was first discovered in which the spaniards and british killed the indians who were NOT americans because they were following orders of the queens. If your going to say they were Americans then by your logic the Americans couldnt have commited genocide on the indains because they themselves were Indians.

Ok you don't even know what you're talking about. The british went to NORTH America, not South and that was 200 years after Cortez was mistaken for Quetzalcoatl. The Spanish didn't follow any order of any queen, they went there after Columbus' first travels to find gold, more gold, slaves, more gold and convert the Natives to Christianity or kill them.

"We ask and require you to acknowledge the church as the ruler and superior of the whole world and the high priest called pope and in his name the king of Spain as lords of this land. If you submit we shall receive you in all love and charity and shall leave you, your wives and children and your lands free without servitude, but if you do not submit we shall powerfully enter into your country and shall make war against you, we shall take you and your wives and your children and shall make slaves of them and we shall take away your goods and shall do you all the harm and damage we can."

They weren't following orders of a Queen but of the Pope.

Jim, if you're going to express your opnion about something that's fine with me but if you're going to claim facts about a matter, don't assume or try to remember facts. Instead, read and research if you're going to counter every well-researched fact with assumptions and falsified claims.

At 6/18/03 01:12 PM, nailbomb wrote: ACK! WHY DID IT TELL ME TO GO BACK AND TRY AGAIN? NOW THERE ARE 2 POSTS!

Apparently the site hates us...I dunno...I think we got off topic a little bit...I think this debate is a lot like you're debate on is the world a better place...I think in the end the side the coin falls on most depends on you're outlook, it's pessimist vs. optimist.

But really, when you think about it...you have not been able to really concretely (at least for me) like MOST of these atrocities to an act of patriotism for me (The Indian massacres in America can definately be seen as linked with it) but I couldn't quite find the connection in canada...that looks more like just plain ol racism like the ignorant people like to make (hmmm, I seem to have had a Wile E. Coyote moment there...). So again, I still think you have a ways to go to convince me.

At 6/18/03 07:58 PM, nailbomb wrote:

At 6/18/03 07:36 PM, jimsween wrote:

What history books are you reading? They were always allowed to live in society and not allowing them to vote is not genocide. And there were none killed after the war without a reason, if your talking about the ones who were hanged I'll have you know during the civil war the soiux attaked cities and raped and pillaged the towns, we took 17 of them to be hanged because they killed civilians or raped women.

Jim, what are your sources for all of those claims? It seems like you're just making things up as you go along. I have sources that back up ALL of my claims while you have none.

You were the one who made the claim so you have to back it up with sources, the indians could leave the reserve to become a citizen but they would have to buy thier own land like everyone else.

Nice job of making stuff up, this doesnt even make sense. Every civilization has weapons.

I SEE THAT YOU KNOW OF EVERY CIVILIZATION THAT EVER EXISTED ON THIS PLANET! SURELY YOU MUST BE A HIGHLY ACREDITED ANTHROPOLOGIST WHO TEACHES AT AN UNIVERSITY! Wait...no you're not, you're a 13 year old that assumed that every cvilization that ever existed had weapons without any proof to back that claim up.

Again, you made the claim you back it up. And every civilization has to have weapons or it couldnt get food, I notice you avoid pointing out any civilization that didnt have weapons.

B. Those who did have weapons though the spaniards were quetzalcoatl (he was pale) which had prophesiced that he would come back.

Again, this doesnt even make sense. Unless you are talking about when America was first discovered in which the spaniards and british killed the indians who were NOT americans because they were following orders of the queens. If your going to say they were Americans then by your logic the Americans couldnt have commited genocide on the indains because they themselves were Indians.

Ok you don't even know what you're talking about. The british went to NORTH America, not South and that was 200 years after Cortez was mistaken for Quetzalcoatl. The Spanish didn't follow any order of any queen, they went there after Columbus' first travels to find gold, more gold, slaves, more gold and convert the Natives to Christianity or kill them.

Obviously you never heard of queen Isabella, and the reason that columbus had to go back the the indies. You obviously dont know what you are talking about so go and read up on what happened beffore you go flapping you mouth off.

"We ask and require you to acknowledge the church as the ruler and superior of the whole world and the high priest called pope and in his name the king of Spain as lords of this land. If you submit we shall receive you in all love and charity and shall leave you, your wives and children and your lands free without servitude, but if you do not submit we shall powerfully enter into your country and shall make war against you, we shall take you and your wives and your children and shall make slaves of them and we shall take away your goods and shall do you all the harm and damage we can."

Again, by your logic they themselves would be natives because they lived in America. And this does nothing to further your point, just because some people went on thier own (which you have still shown no proof of, this would still imply that they were ordered to go there.) doesnt mean they all did.

They weren't following orders of a Queen but of the Pope.

These particular people did, and if they were you should be blaming the catholic church not America.

Jim, if you're going to express your opnion about something that's fine with me but if you're going to claim facts about a matter, don't assume or try to remember facts. Instead, read and research if you're going to counter every well-researched fact with assumptions and falsified claims.

You seem to talk alot about falsefied claims when you yourself have offered no proof to support what you say. Maybe it's you who needs to do some reading.

At 6/18/03 11:37 PM, Jimsween wrote:

What history books are you reading? They were always allowed to live in society and not allowing them to vote is not genocide. And there were none killed after the war without a reason, if your talking about the ones who were hanged I'll have you know during the civil war the soiux attaked cities and raped and pillaged the towns, we took 17 of them to be hanged because they killed civilians or raped women.

You were the one who made the claim so you have to back it up with sources, the indians could leave the reserve to become a citizen but they would have to buy thier own land like everyone else.

http://www.studyworld.com/indian_removal_act_of_1830.htm
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2959.html
http://www.civics-online.org/library/formatted/texts/indian_act.html
http://www.stanford.edu/~paherman/indian_removal.htm
They weren't allowed to become American citizens until 1924, hundreds of years after Americans started invading their land.
Now show me your sources for your claims.

Again, you made the claim you back it up. And every civilization has to have weapons or it couldnt get food, I notice you avoid pointing out any civilization that didnt have weapons.

[Columbus'] journal was revealing. He described the people who greeted him when landed in the Bahamas--they were Arawak Indians, some times called Tainos--and told how they waded out into the sea to greet him and his men, who must have looked and sounded like people from another world, and brought them gifts of various kinds. He described them as peaceable, gentle, and said: “They do not bear arms, and do not know them for I showed them a sword--they took it by the edge and cut themselves.” Throughout his journal, over the next months, Columbus spoke of the native Americans with what seemed like admiring awe: “They are the best people in the world and above all the gentlest--without knowledge of what is evil--nor do they murder or steal...they love their neighbors as themselves and they have the sweetest talk in the world...always laughing.”
Columbus & Western Civilization, Howard Zinn (excerpts)

Obviously you never heard of queen Isabella, and the reason that columbus had to go back the the indies. You obviously dont know what you are talking about so go and read up on what happened beffore you go flapping you mouth off.

CORTEZ was the one who conquered South America, Columbus went there twice and died. CORTEZ was the one who read the pope's declaration in Spanish. Columbus was already dead when Cortez was mistaken for a God, which lead to the downfall of the Maya, Aztec, Inca and Tolmec empires.

Again, by your logic they themselves would be natives because they lived in America. And this does nothing to further your point, just because some people went on thier own (which you have still shown no proof of, this would still imply that they were ordered to go there.) doesnt mean they all did.

Go read a history book. and a dictionary.

These particular people did, and if they were you should be blaming the catholic church not America.

The catholic church WAS America until they separated the church from state.

You seem to talk alot about falsefied claims when you yourself have offered no proof to support what you say. Maybe it's you who needs to do some reading.

I'm still waiting for your proof that there was only 17 natives killed during the civil war.

At 6/17/03 10:49 AM, Lyddiechu wrote: hey commander, dont you ever wonder what europe would be like today if bismarck had remained in control of german politics and kaiser wilhelm hadnt fucked it all up by screwing up germany's alliances and allowing austria-hungary to drag it into WWI??? maybe there wouldnt have ever been a 3rd reich (that wouldnt have helped my european ancestors, stalin killed all of them, but that wasnt genocide since stalin killed everyone regardless of race!!)

This is a bit off-topic as far as the actual thread goes, but anyway:

I don't really think Bismarck could have done that much even if he didn't resign. He was in his eighties at the time and I believe he died only a few years afterwards. I think Wilhelm could have done better by maintaining relations with Russia and thus avoiding a two-front war, or WWI at all. He and Czar Nicholas II were, after all, cousins.

If WWI had been avoided, it would all be different, no WWII, no Holocaust, no Cold War, no communist revolutions, no Iron Curtain, no arms race.

Of course, these things may very well have been replaced with similar things but just in different circumstances.

BTW, I set up my own forum with a board for these sort of topics. Go to http://commanderk25.proboards19.com if you're interested.

At 6/19/03 01:04 PM, nailbomb wrote:

At 6/18/03 11:37 PM, Jimsween wrote:

What history books are you reading? They were always allowed to live in society and not allowing them to vote is not genocide. And there were none killed after the war without a reason, if your talking about the ones who were hanged I'll have you know during the civil war the soiux attaked cities and raped and pillaged the towns, we took 17 of them to be hanged because they killed civilians or raped women.

You were the one who made the claim so you have to back it up with sources, the indians could leave the reserve to become a citizen but they would have to buy thier own land like everyone else.

http://www.studyworld.com/indian_removal_act_of_1830.htm
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2959.html
http://www.civics-online.org/library/formatted/texts/indian_act.html
http://www.stanford.edu/~paherman/indian_removal.htm
They weren't allowed to become American citizens until 1924, hundreds of years after Americans started invading their land.
Now show me your sources for your claims.

None of those say anything about them being able to leave the reserve.

Again, you made the claim you back it up. And every civilization has to have weapons or it couldnt get food, I notice you avoid pointing out any civilization that didnt have weapons.

[Columbus'] journal was revealing. He described the people who greeted him when landed in the Bahamas--they were Arawak Indians, some times called Tainos--and told how they waded out into the sea to greet him and his men, who must have looked and sounded like people from another world, and brought them gifts of various kinds. He described them as peaceable, gentle, and said: “They do not bear arms, and do not know them for I showed them a sword--they took it by the edge and cut themselves.” Throughout his journal, over the next months, Columbus spoke of the native Americans with what seemed like admiring awe: “They are the best people in the world and above all the gentlest--without knowledge of what is evil--nor do they murder or steal...they love their neighbors as themselves and they have the sweetest talk in the world...always laughing.”
Columbus & Western Civilization, Howard Zinn (excerpts)

This is all Columbus's opinion, and more so as I pointed out earlier the source of this journal is sketchy. If they had no weapons they would have had no way of getting food, and more so would have been greatly open to attack from the several militant tribes.

Obviously you never heard of queen Isabella, and the reason that columbus had to go back the the indies. You obviously dont know what you are talking about so go and read up on what happened beffore you go flapping you mouth off.

CORTEZ was the one who conquered South America, Columbus went there twice and died. CORTEZ was the one who read the pope's declaration in Spanish. Columbus was already dead when Cortez was mistaken for a God, which lead to the downfall of the Maya, Aztec, Inca and Tolmec empires.

This still doesnt make them Americans, if they went under order of the pope then they were vaticans or Italians, but not Americans.

Again, by your logic they themselves would be natives because they lived in America. And this does nothing to further your point, just because some people went on thier own (which you have still shown no proof of, this would still imply that they were ordered to go there.) doesnt mean they all did.

Go read a history book. and a dictionary.

No rebuttal, that seems pretty common of you. You keep avoiding that by your logic they were all natives so they couldnt have commited genocide. By not answering that you are only making a fool of yourself to everyone else.

These particular people did, and if they were you should be blaming the catholic church not America.

The catholic church WAS America until they separated the church from state.

That couldnt be more wrong, America if anything was the protestant church and to make the insinuation that because some people were Catholic that the whole country was the Catholic church is moronic. Your just grabbing at air now.

You seem to talk alot about falsefied claims when you yourself have offered no proof to support what you say. Maybe it's you who needs to do some reading.

I'm still waiting for your proof that there was only 17 natives killed during the civil war.

That is in minnesota if you would have read what I wrote, and there was (to my knowledge) no other native attacks during the war. Go and reorganize yourself before you come back to debate, nobody likes a sloppy ranter.

At 6/19/03 11:24 PM, Jimsween wrote:

No rebuttal, that seems pretty common of you. You keep avoiding that by your logic they were all natives so they couldnt have commited genocide. By not answering that you are only making a fool of yourself to everyone else.

Native American: One lving in America whose line ancestors can be traced back to America to the fullest extent.
American: One living in America whose line of ancestors can be traced back to another continent ot the fullest extent.

See? A native has native ancestors and an American has foreign ancestors. I don't know what you're going on about, I never said that Americans were Native Americans.

That couldnt be more wrong, America if anything was the protestant church and to make the insinuation that because some people were Catholic that the whole country was the Catholic church is moronic. Your just grabbing at air now.

Protestants and Catholics worship the same god do they not? Please restrain yourself from asserting that I'm grasping at air until you've proved me wrong.

That is in minnesota if you would have read what I wrote, and there was (to my knowledge) no other native attacks during the war. Go and reorganize yourself before you come back to debate, nobody likes a sloppy ranter.

Go and read your own quote, you never wrote that it was for minnesota, don't you dare call me a sloppy ranter when you do the exact same thing in this very thread.

To your knowledge you say? Well apparently you don't know what you're talking about.

1824 The Bureau of Indian Affairs is established.
The US Army establishes outposts in Oklahoma to prepare for the relocation of Cherokee and Choctaw tribes to the new Indian Territory.
1825 The federal government establishes its policy of trading land Indian land in the east for territory in the west.
1830 The Indian Removal Act is passed.
1833 The Choctaw complete their removal to the west.
1834 Congress reorganizes the Bureau of Indian Affairs into the Department of Indian Affairs with expanded responsibilities.
1835 The Seminoles reject forced removal to the west and begin a seven year war.
The Cherokee finally agree to removal to the west.
1838 General Winfield Scott oversees the Cherokee on the 'Trail of Tears'.
1851 The Fort Laramie Treaty is signed between the US and several Indian tribes of the plains. It was designed to give land to the tribes and create peace between the Indians and the white settlers. It is a failure because neither side had the power to uphold the agreement.
1854 Conquering Bear of the Lakota tribe is killed along with many others by troops from Fort Laramie.
1862 The Five Civilized Tribes are divided over the Civil War, most join the Confederacy.
1864 Colonel Kit Carson lead a campaign again raiding Navajos. After their capture he forces them on the 'Long Walk' across New Mexico.
Cheyenne Chief Black Kettle and 200 men, women, and children are massacred by a volunteer force led by John M. Chivington while meeting at Fort Weld to discuss their return to the reservation.
1866 General Philip H. Sheridan takes command of forces in the west and vows to bring down the Indian way of life by destroying the buffalo.
Chief Red Cloud of the Lakota attacks a supply train heading to Fort Phil Kearney. They then lead Captain William J. Fetterman and his men from the fort and massacre them to the last man.
1868 The Medicine Lodge Treaty is signed between the US and the Comanche, Kiowa, Cheyenne, Arapaho and other southern Plains tribes. The treaty restricts them to reservations in Oklahoma.
General William Tecumseh Sherman and Chief Red Cloud of the Lakota sight the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868.
Colonel George Armstrong Custer attacks a Cheyenne village on the Washita River and kills Black Kettle and over 100 men, women, and children. He was sent out by General Philip Sheridan.
1871 Congresses passes the Indian Appropriations Act which essentially makes all Indian wards of the federal government and dissolves the status of Indian tribes as nations.
Cochise, Apache chief ends his decade long guerilla war, only to escape back to his mountain stronghold rather than agreeing to send his people to a reservation.
1872 Cochise, Apache chief surrenders again and agrees to the creation of the Apache reservation in Arizona.
1874 Custer announces the discovery of gold in the Black Hills of Dakota, land given to the Lakota tribe. This creates a massive influx of white settlers into the land guaranteed to the Lakota as part of the Fort Laramie Treaty.
1875 The Lakota War begins over the violation of the Fort Laramie Treaty by the US Government.
1876 Custer's Last Stand or the Battle of Little Big Horn takes place as Lakota Indian massacre his force to the last man.
1877 Crazy Horse surrenders at Fort Robinson. Unfortunately, many believe he will rebel again so he is arrested and killed a few months later.
Congress repeals the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868 and takes back the Black Hills region and millions of additional acres of Lakota land.
Chief Joseph of the Nez Perce surrenders and declares he will fight no more.
1881 Sitting Bull surrenders to General Alfred Terry.
1886 Geronimo surrenders at Skeleton Canyon, Arizona and agrees to settle with his people in Florida.
1890 Lakota Chief Big Foot and 350 followers are massacred at Wounded Knee. This is traditionally considered the end of armed conflict in the Indian Wars.
http://americanhistory.about.com/library/timelines/bltimelineusnative.htm

At 6/19/03 11:24 PM, Jimsween wrote:

None of those say anything about them being able to leave the reserve.

Then I strongly urge you to read them at least once. :)

This is all Columbus's opinion, and more so as I pointed out earlier the source of this journal is sketchy. If they had no weapons they would have had no way of getting food, and more so would have been greatly open to attack from the several militant tribes.

That is not an opinion, he is describing what he's seeing. The journal you are reffering to was kept for his journey TOWARDS America, he had no use for it when they had reached his promised land. The Arawak people were not hunters therefore they had no use, nor did they have the knowledge of weapons whether they were meant for hunting or war. Why else would they have handled the sword by the blade? WHAT OTHER SEVERAL OTHER MILITANT TRIBES? THEY WERE THE ONLY ONES THERE! IT WAS AN ISLAND! GO READ A BOOK!

This still doesnt make them Americans, if they went under order of the pope then they were vaticans or Italians, but not Americans.

Did I claim they were Americans? No I did not, you're putting words in my mouth. Furthermore, even if they're not Americans they had the same reasons for colonizing the "new" world.
A.Gold
B.Slaves
C.Convert the heathen indians to Chritinanity
C.2.Kill them if they refused Christ
D.Land, of course, which was to be claimed as their own.

At 6/20/03 11:50 AM, nailbomb wrote:

At 6/19/03 11:24 PM, Jimsween wrote:

No rebuttal, that seems pretty common of you. You keep avoiding that by your logic they were all natives so they couldnt have commited genocide. By not answering that you are only making a fool of yourself to everyone else.

Native American: One lving in America whose line ancestors can be traced back to America to the fullest extent.

Then nobody is native American's because the natives all came from china and europe.

American: One living in America whose line of ancestors can be traced back to another continent ot the fullest extent.

This would be all Natives.

A·mer·i·can ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-mr-kn)
adj.
Of or relating to the United States of America or its people, language, or culture.
Of or relating to North or South America, the West Indies, or the Western Hemisphere.
Of or relating to any of the Native American peoples.
Indigenous to North or South America. Used of plants and animals.

n.
A native or inhabitant of America.
A citizen of the United States.
American English.

Native American
n.
A member of any of the indigenous peoples of the Western Hemisphere. The ancestors of the Native Americans are generally considered by scientists to have entered the Americas from Asia by way of the Bering Strait sometime during the late glacial epoch.

And on top of that you are going against you logic, which makes you a hypocrite.

See? A native has native ancestors and an American has foreign ancestors. I don't know what you're going on about, I never said that Americans were Native Americans.

You can't just make up your own definitions.

That couldnt be more wrong, America if anything was the protestant church and to make the insinuation that because some people were Catholic that the whole country was the Catholic church is moronic. Your just grabbing at air now.

Protestants and Catholics worship the same god do they not? Please restrain yourself from asserting that I'm grasping at air until you've proved me wrong.

You said that the country was catholic and it follwed the pope, protestants dont follow the pope. You don't even remember what you were talking about.

That is in minnesota if you would have read what I wrote, and there was (to my knowledge) no other native attacks during the war. Go and reorganize yourself before you come back to debate, nobody likes a sloppy ranter.

Go and read your own quote, you never wrote that it was for minnesota, don't you dare call me a sloppy ranter when you do the exact same thing in this very thread.

I never wrote that it was for the whole country either.

To your knowledge you say? Well apparently you don't know what you're talking about.

None of those were native attacks during the civil war, and none of those amount to genocide.

At 6/20/03 12:00 PM, nailbomb wrote:

At 6/19/03 11:24 PM, Jimsween wrote:

None of those say anything about them being able to leave the reserve.

Then I strongly urge you to read them at least once. :)

I did, they don't say they couldnt leave the reserve. There is no way they could prevent them from because you would know if they were natves or not.

This is all Columbus's opinion, and more so as I pointed out earlier the source of this journal is sketchy. If they had no weapons they would have had no way of getting food, and more so would have been greatly open to attack from the several militant tribes.

That is not an opinion, he is describing what he's seeing. The journal you are reffering to was kept for his journey TOWARDS America, he had no use for it when they had reached his promised land. The Arawak people were not hunters therefore they had no use, nor did they have the knowledge of weapons whether they were meant for hunting or war. Why else would they have handled the sword by the blade? WHAT OTHER SEVERAL OTHER MILITANT TRIBES? THEY WERE THE ONLY ONES THERE! IT WAS AN ISLAND! GO READ A BOOK!

Again, It was all Columbus's opinion. They would seem to not have any hate to him because they were much nicer than europeans. And that could have been the fake journal.

This still doesnt make them Americans, if they went under order of the pope then they were vaticans or Italians, but not Americans.

Did I claim they were Americans? No I did not, you're putting words in my mouth. Furthermore, even if they're not Americans they had the same reasons for colonizing the "new" world.
A.Gold
B.Slaves
C.Convert the heathen indians to Chritinanity
C.2.Kill them if they refused Christ
D.Land, of course, which was to be claimed as their own.

Yes you did claim they were Americans, you said their offspring eventually becamse Americans so they were americans and that is why America commited genocide. And they would not kill them if they refused christ, you are supposed to keep trying to convert them, which is more proof that you are just making things up.

At 6/20/03 04:01 PM, Jimsween wrote:

I did, they don't say they couldnt leave the reserve. There is no way they could prevent them from because you would know if they were natves or not.

What do you think is the purpose of the Indian removal Act?

Again, It was all Columbus's opinion. They would seem to not have any hate to him because they were much nicer than europeans. And that could have been the fake journal.

They were nice so they cut themselves on the sword? No, it could not have been the fake journal because the fake journal was kept onboard on the way to America to prevent a mutiny. Jim, I doubt Europeans were so hateful so that in contrast the Arawak people seemed like angels, unless Europeans greeted each other with a kick to the head.

Yes you did claim they were Americans, you said their offspring eventually becamse Americans so they were americans and that is why America commited genocide. And they would not kill them if they refused christ, you are supposed to keep trying to convert them, which is more proof that you are just making things up.

Their ancestors were Americans, they were of another ancestry, you have to be born in America to be an American. (or apply for citizenship)

"We ask and require you to acknowledge the church as the ruler and superior of the whole world and the high priest called pope and in his name the king of Spain as lords of this land. If you submit we shall receive you in all love and charity and shall leave you, your wives and children and your lands free without servitude, but if you do not submit we shall powerfully enter into your country and shall make war against you, we shall take you and your wives and your children and shall make slaves of them and we shall take away your goods and shall do you all the harm and damage we can."
Cortez's declaration to the people of south America.