Post Archive
Region: Libertatem
It certainly did, but I highly doubt that tens of millions were massacred. I'd estimate a few dozen thousand, but don't quote me on that.
He said a lot of good things, but did little in office.
Fair point. As a founding father, he was excellent. As a president, not so much.
Call it controversial, but i think you can consider me a member. Not as my primary party however.
I am not so sure about those numbers... The flag isn't banned because, oh I don't know, it's the defining symbol of the country. And the swastika is kinda affiliated with a group of people that killed 11 million innocent people and started WWII so I think that is pretty just
Hell, I might as well too.
Can we list party members? Would be a good thing to see.
First off, those numbers have been verified by several sources. Sources as in "It is the general consensus of american scholars and historians." Second, if you thought the "Let's ban the American flag" thing was a literal idea, I am not the one who is un-reliable. I was simply wondering what makes the genocide of native americans "just" and the horrific genocide of the jewish religion unjust.
Muh Roads has AnCP's support for the 1st Seat.
Who has support for the 5th seat?
I don't think anyone classifies the genocide of the Native Americans as just. However, while most reasonable Americans will not try to justify it, some have said it was because they were fighting alongside us Canucks.
Despite the fact that the majority of Native Americans died after 1812.
Thank you.
It was mostly for land
I also think that the justification is because pretty much every native population in the Americas experienced this. (Canada, South America)
Most of the killing in south america by conquistodors was long before 1776, which was when the numbers mentioned above were recorde.
I was referring to the american flag thing as being just. The settlers killed off american Indians over land disputes and usually didn't just say "Hey let's go ahead and attack these people just for fun." The concept of settlers taking the land away is social Darwinism at it's finest. The american indians were far less technologically advanced than the settlers so they got forced out and had most of their society destroyed. It was quite just in advancing technology and bettering our american society. I am american btw, in case you didn't know since we have a wide range of countries here.
And on the Holocaust thing, the Nazis killing people that weren't part of a made up ethnic group, "aryans" is absurd and retarded. That is why the Holocaust is unjust and not even in the realm of conparability to the things like the Trail of Tears for example. Duh.
Getting an early start to the sack tonight, so goodnight guys. Remember, tomorrow is the last day to vote, so, yeah.... do that. Vote Humpheria, vote RLP, etc., etc., good night.
I thought this was day 1 of 3 voting days?
It isn't a land dispute if you just waltz your happy ass in the place and start killing people of one race. That is genocide. It doesn't better the American people to invade land and kill tens of millions of people. It creates ignorant bastards like yourself, who think things like this are okay. I don't know what your political views are, but if you call yourself a libertarian or an objectivist, you are full of horse sh*t. I don't know what kind of non-aggression principle you have been reading, but I guess It might as well have been in arabic because obviously you couldn't wrap your head around it. What kind of Libertarian government would spend money on mass murder?
So I propose that You are not an "Objectivist". You soil that Ideology by attaching your name to it. You are a Fascist.
And in case you thought I was some f*cking terrorist or something who Bush told you "hates your freedom", I am an American.
First, you didnt state the source
Second, The vast majority of that number was killed off by UNINTENTIONAL disease transmitted first by the Spanish
Third, Andrew Jackson LOVED certain groups of Native Americans, he went as far as to adopt a Cherokee son, and fought numerous times with native soldiers (ie New Orleans) and always praised them. The trail of tears was an attempt to stop a full genocide of the Indians by southern planters. Although it was obviously poorly thought out and resulted in the deaths of scores of Indians, Jackson truly believed it was in the people best interest.
There are several sources that are ridiculously easy to find that say the same exact thing
There was still large amounts of mass genocide after the plague had ended
Notice how if someone came to a european country with a plague, that country would tell those people to get the f*ck out.
The europeans didn't which showed that they clearly didn't care.
Genocide is when you kill a particular ethic or racial group simply to do so. What americans did to american indians was not genocide simply because it was one group vs another. Is the current war in Afghanistan a genocide simply because it is mainly white american people fighting against muslim middle easterners? No. But by your logic it is. perhaps you should become properly informed on what you think you are talking about. The conflict was a war basically. How can you tell me I am not what I say I am because you don't know what you are talking about? Were the Japanese committing genocide on americans in WWII? No. Duh. What about the USSR when it attacked afghanistan? No. You are applying anti-genocide ideas to wars to support your extreme libertarian beliefs, which you probably only have because you probably molded them from the character Ron Swanson on Parks and Rec. And I think your just being a little salty because you are loosing in our election.
1. Then post one
2. Need citation of additional "mass genocide"
3. Initially the Europeans didn't know they were carrying pathogens. In addition, it's highly ineffective to compare European tradition and law (which I would also like cited) to the settlement of the America's.
Look it up yourself
They are literally all over the place.
I'm not the one making the claim
For the record, I'm aware of pre-colonial populations, but I become frustrated when people make fact based claims without citation. The initial statement was that The US government killed off the entire population of natives, that is what was inaccurate
it really isn't a claim.
It might as well be a fact.
This is what was completely unfounded
There were about 275000 left
In other words, around 90%
I want to see the source please. And a documented trail that shows how a direct policy line killed off the natives on purpose for simply being Indians.
Well, they killed them for being in the way
I am aware of no policy implemented by federal government that directly lead to the death of 275000 native Americans.
It is actually quite difficult to find any numbers, I tried. As I cannot find any confirmed reports, until I am shown significant evidence, I will assume your argument invalid, and will side with Lack there of.
As is pointed out in the NFL National Guidelines of Policy Debate (which is basically what this has boiled down to).
"Given the fragmentary nature of the evidence, even semi-accurate pre-Columbian population figures are impossible to obtain. Estimates are made by extrapolations from small bits of data. In 1976, geographer William Denevan used the existing estimates to derive a "consensus count" of about 54 million people. Nonetheless, more recent estimates still range widely."
20th century estimates in Thornton, p. 22; Denevan's consensus count; recent lower estimates.
Most scholars writing at the end of the 19th century estimated the pre-Columbian population at about 10 million; by the end of the 20th century the scholarly consensus had shifted to about 50 million, with some arguing for 100 million or more.
Alan Taylor (2002). American colonies; Volume 1 of The Penguin history of the United States, History of the United States Series. Penguin. p. 40. ISBN 9780142002100. Retrieved 7 October 2013.
Eat your heart out.
"On September 8, 2000, the head of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) formally apologized for the agency's participation in the "ethnic cleansing" of Western tribes."
"An apology from the BIA". tahtonka (Global Culture, Exploring the Humanities of Humans). 2000. Retrieved 21 February 2010.
I think it's really funny how after several people have asked for you to simply copy and paste a link onto nation states to provide your claims with any merit you still won't do it. And I think it's really funny how you don't even have a comeback after what I said earlier because you know I got you.
I see the numbers not the intentional slaughter of millions based on race, religion, or creed (genocide)
Thank you for citing, but this action is a load of crap taken after pressure from outside groups really took its toll.
While a precise definition varies among genocide scholars, a legal definition is found in the library of official rights of Guatemala the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Article 2 of this convention defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide Archived 2 May 2008 at the Wayback Machine
Which shows that in the context of a genocide, reasons are not part of the working definition. A genocide is "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group"
See generally Funk, T. Marcus (2010). Victims' Rights and Advocacy at the International Criminal Court. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. p. [1]. ISBN 0-19-973747-9.
Doesn't matter.
The government referred to it as "ethnic cleansing"
I would call that a telltale sign of a genocide.
If we want to go by the UN's definition (which is incredibly broad) then yes a genocide was committed against the native population. I'm not trying to tell you things were great for everyone, obviously the natives got the short end of the stick. The main problem remains of the alleged intentional murdering of 50 to 100 million natives at the hands of the US federal government
Almost all estimates that are excepted by scholars will give you something within that range.(which is also incredibly broad)
But either way, any number in that spectrum would list as one of the largest, if not the largest, genocide of all time.
I have nothing against you at all or anyone else here, except for Rick Grimes, who maintains that it is okay to murder millions of natives because one thinks they are inferior to themselves. (the tenses got a little foggy in that sentence, holy sh*it). That is where I tend to lose my temper, and take it out on all of you other fine gentlemen.
The largest, documented, genocide in human history, to my knowledge was a result of Mao's Great Leap Forward, and other Chinese policies of the era, in which 50 to 70 million died as a direct result of government policies.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong
The Indian affair cannot be solely blamed on the federal government. The two cultures were incompatible from the beginning and one could hardly blame the settlers for coming to the "new world" to escape the tyrannies of Europe.
It's cool, I don't expect any of this to be personal
You would think after coming out of such a horrible place, they would have been somewhat peaceful.
That's a whole other can of worms to divulge into, but as for now exam week takes precedent and I must wish you all a good evening.
Ugh finals next month
Not to be 'that guy' here, but they've settled on the term "democide" (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide) for crimes committed by Mao, as they were largely political - which isn't inside of the UN's definition of genocide as the systematic targeting of people based on race, nationality, ethnicity or religion. Still one of the worst crimes of the 20th Century though, undeniably.
Based on the definition though, I'd argue that at least some of the actions of American government (i.e. Trail of Tears) would count as genocide, as they were specifically targeted towards the Cherokee ethnic/cultural group.
Finally, to the mister who asked why the American flag isn't seen the same way as Nazi Germany's is, it's a case of victors write history. If Nazi Germany had won (virtually impossible, given), we'd all be revering that flag as a 'beacon of hope and freedom'. Freedom, in this hypothetical case, from the 'evil inferior races' and 'cancer of democracy'. *shivers*
In other news, please don't forget to send your votes for the board to The Lone Star !
Also, I'll be pretty inactive after tomorrow. But trust that ill be logging in occasionally. Sunday I have a 10 hour drive ahead of me.. woohoo
You're just lucky the government was kind enough to build those roads to drive on
http://tinypic.com/r/5chlc2/5
I'll have you know i've got a Jeep TJ on 31's.. i dont need roads! Lol :P
You had better watch yourself, you can only drive on the holy grass because big gov allows it... For now
Sad but true.. I fear that many ORV parks may be shut down in my lifetime...
Serves you polluting monsters right! We should all just walk or ride bikes, that way everyone will be free from sickness
Post self-deleted by Muh Roads.
Why? We should just kill fido instead... dogs pollute more than suvs.
http://www.ecoworld.com/animals/dogs-pollute-more-than-suvs.html
If we could just kill everything the plants could reclaim the world and nature would smile upon us once again
hehe You guys are weird hehe
Yea but then we wouldn't be around to enjoy it :p
That is of no consequence so long as the plants are happy
Post self-deleted by Muh Roads.
I forgot that plants were sentient. I should thank my oak tree more often. I feel really bad for literally walking all over grass all these years.. :(
Good, your guilt feeds the nature
Can you guys believe big daddy Ben bernake is leaving officially?!? How will the world economy survive with anyone else
Wow somebody is really into plants
About time. He's much better than the Great Compromiser, but still economically illiterate.
How are the elections going?
I'm wondering that myself. According to yesterday's stats, the ACP looks to gain a seat along with that of Miencraft.
Post self-deleted by The Lone Star.
1st seat: Muh Roads RLP - SECURED
2nd seat: Humpheria, RLP (8) / Endralia, ACP (4)
3rd seat: Ronald Reagan and Rick Grimes, RLP (7) / Alchandria, LOP (5) (Replacing Islands)
4th seat: Miencraft, ACP - SECURED
5th seat: The Liberty Front, RLP (6) / Zarden, ACP (6) (Replacing Abaretta)
Wow! Close race..
Wow, much close, s--
No.
Still, very close. Interested in seeing who grabs 3 and 5.
1st seat: Muh Roads RLP - SECURED
2nd seat: Humpheria, RLP (9) / Endralia, ACP (4)
3rd seat: Ronald Reagan and Rick Grimes, RLP (8) / Alchandria, LOP (5) (Replacing Islands)
4th seat: Miencraft, ACP - SECURED
5th seat: The Liberty Front, RLP (7) / Zarden, ACP (6) (Replacing Abaretta)
Well this is finally starting o get interesting!!!! Is this the last day, or is that tomorrow? I lost track.
There's one more day of voting.
The balance is temporarily broken as the RLP threatens to gain 4 seats to the ACP's 1.
Who will claim the 5th seat?
1st seat: Muh Roads RLP - SECURED
2nd seat: Humpheria, RLP (9) / Endralia, ACP (6)
3rd seat: Ronald Reagan and Rick Grimes, RLP (8) / Alchandria, LOP (7) (Replacing Islands)
4th seat: Miencraft, ACP - SECURED
5th seat: The Liberty Front, RLP (7) / Zarden, ACP (8) (Replacing Abaretta)
Plot twist!
Lul
This is heating up but I think most of the votes are already in.
Thanks to everyone who voted for me so far. I encourage everyone who hasn't yet to vote for myself and Liberty Front.
Thank you for mentioning me sir.
The third and fifth seats are neck and neck, and it appears that there has been a huge leap for the underdog in the second seat!
The AnCP stands behind the nations they have voted for. Unfortunately we are not sharing who those nations are at this time.
That was a crazy leap in voters for me
Really reelin' them in there, buddy.
lol
There's no need for hostilities, friend.
I'm just screwing around.
This just in: Opponents of Alchandria's campaign point out that he is just screwing around.
Our question for tonight: Is Alchandria his own opponent?
Sometimes.
Sorry for leaving you out, I'm so sorry. I cry. I meant to mainly endorse those of us in a close race but yeah
Vote for Humpheria, he is awshum
Really? Last night or day, whatever timezone you're in, but night for me, you said some pretty hostile things about me there chief
Okay, fine, I'll reveal what I voted if you guys really want to know.
But we don't care
SHUT UP. Now then, I'm rooting for RRRG and Zarden and hope they both win despite the current close margins. As for the second seat, I think both candidates would do fine, so I voted Endralia to give him a fighting chance.
I should have campaigned more, but I've been spending most of my time with my family, since finals ended.
Sorry about my inactivity, for the past week. :(
Happens to the best of us friend! Theres still another day!
Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.