Re: What Doctor said this & where is he from?
- From: Briarroot <briarroot@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 13:30:54 -0400
Ngo Dinh Diem wrote:
On Oct 26, 5:46 am, Briarroot <briarr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:Ngo Dinh Diem wrote:
My problem is the way in which some Americans, yourself included it
seems, appear to idolise and deify a motely crew of colonists who
committed unspeakable acts against the native population of America
bordering on genocide and harboured all the prejudices, and igonrance
of that time
This story can not be considered complete without a reference to the
"unspeakable acts" committed by the native American tribes. Atrocities
such as the massacre of entire communities of men, women and children,
ritual torture practiced on captives and the enslavement of children
were commonplace among the natives themselves and against the European
colonists as well.
Those of us who remember our founders at all, and there seems to be
fewer and fewer of us with each passing year, honor them as pioneers who
displayed the admirable traits of fortitude and determination in carving
out a new home for their civilization amidst the wilderness of
barbarism. Their descendants then had the audacity to challenge the
mightiest empire they world had ever known in demanding their freedom.
That they subsequently won that freedom, and proceeded to establish an
orderly means of passing it down to succeeding generations, is reason
enough to revere them still; but also, that the nation they created
became an inspiration for the world's oppressed peoples for more than
200 years is yet another reason to venerate their memory.
As for you, we Americans will be happy to overlook *your* prejudice and
ignorance if ever you show any sign of recognizing them.
Ah yes the White Man's Burden, unsurprising really that you fall back
on such colonial rhetoric. One would think you were an English satrap
during the Raj!
What did I note about your prejudice and ignorance? <laughter>
Just to further your education a bit...
The English colonists did not settle in North America to convert or to improve the standard of living of the native population, they came to establish a community where they themselves could freely practice their own form of religion. The cultural/racial bias expressed in the phrase "White Man's Burden" did not appear until centuries afterward. But I understand; to you and your ilk, natives *never* have any racial or cultural biases of their own!
"The wilderness of barbarism"? Aren't we waxing
lyrical today. From a jingoist ideological perspective what you say
might be construed as rational, but really is just a rehashing of the
By any standard, North America *was* a wilderness and few of the inhabitants were what anyone then or now would call civilized. Ergo, it *was* a wilderness of barbarism.
Just like indigenous people across the world
(including the Maori), I am sure the Native Americans were perfectly
happy living their "savage" lives until colonists arrived and decided
to impose their ideals - whether the locals liked it or not,
<laughter> So happy were the natives in their 'idyllic' wilderness, that they eagerly adopted the colonists use of horses, steel tools and weapons, and did so as rapidly as they were able. Indeed, it's reasonable to suggest that this was *not* much to the colonists liking - hostile natives on horseback with steel knives and tomahawks are a lot more formidable than those on foot armed with stone weapons, ya see. No, the colonists did *not* "impose their ideals," that's merely one of the favored shibboleths of willfully ignorant and insane leftists. In reality, the natives went to great lengths to adopt European ways, and while this began a process by which Native cultures *were* irrevocably changed, that was *not* part of any plan or policy of the original colonists.
not to mention the attendant land theft and subjugation.
There was enough room for everyone. The continent was wide open; a few million natives who were largely hunter-gatherers didn't occupy every square mile; and land can't be "stolen" from someone who has no sense of land ownership.
Yes atrocities were
committed on both sides of the conflict, but people are only too ready
to overlook nasty acts committed by "their" side.
You are as guilty as they are of ignoring history in favor of a fantasy which plainly mirrors your own warped political views.
What the colonists
achieved was indeed remarkable, but this was to the detriment of many
<laughter> Yeah, so what? You could append that sentence to all of human history. Clue #1: not everyone is going to be happy no matter *what* happens.
I do not consider myself to be ignorant,
Then you are an idiot as well. There are only two kinds of people on this planet, those who are aware that they are ignorant and those who are not. Idiots don't understand that ignorance is the defining attribute of humanity. The gods are not ignorant - we are.
I am however ready to consider history from the point of view of others, unlike
<chuckle> You contradict yourself freely!
One could say that by viewing history through the eyes of
the 'victors' is rather blinkered.
<laughter> Just above you opined: "I am sure the Native Americans were perfectly happy living their 'savage' lives until colonists arrived and decided to impose their ideals." That sentence speaks *volumes* about your own cultural bias! What you are clearly unaware of is ... history. As history demonstrates, whenever two cultures have existed side by side, the culture with the better tools has always overwhelmed the other by means of the natural inclination of human beings to improve their lot in life. It doesn't *matter* what either side thinks of the other or what either side wishes, superior technology always wins the cultural clash.
It is interesting that you say America is an inspiration for the
oppressed. Ho Chi Minh (inter alia) and the Vietnamese were oppressed
by the French
Define "oppressed." Ho and the comrades with whom who began the revolution that lasted 30 years and condemned millions to death, were not only educated by the French but their families had become rich and powerful in trade with the French, and all of them were free to travel anywhere in the world as often as they pleased. That's hardly a picture of oppression! It might even be observed that the Vietnamese people were better off socially and economically under French rule than they had been under Chinese rule, but of course any recognition of that might alter your myopic view of "white racism!"
- and he looked to America as an inspiration, but that
obviously did not go so well for him.
Ho wanted America to exercise its *power* and was denied it. He wanted Wilson to intervene with the French, an idea which Wilson wisely ignored. "Intervention" means somebody gets killed, ya see.
Whether your country is an
inspiration for those who have thousand pound bombs dropped on their
heads also remains questionable, good luck convincing their families
In your dementia, you think those bombs fall only because America wants to kill some "happy natives." You are so biased that you are always ready to excuse the provocateur - as long as he's not American. All blame must rest with those who retaliate - as long as he *is* an American!
You're a pathetic phony.
"Can President Barack Obama and Congress enact legislation that orders Americans to buy broccoli? If so, where did they get that authority? What provision in the Constitution empowers the federal government to order an individual to buy a product he does not want? This is not a question about nutrition. It is not a question about whether broccoli is good for you or about the relative merits of broccoli versus other foods. It is a question about the constitutional limits on the power of the federal government. It is a question about freedom. Can President Obama and Congress enact legislation that orders Americans to buy health insurance? They might as well order Americans to buy broccoli. They have no legitimate authority to do either. Yet neither Obama nor the current leadership in Congress seems to care about the constitutional limits on their power. They are now attempting to exert authority over the lives of Americans in a way no president and Congress has done before. ... All versions of the health care bill under consideration in Congress would order Americans to buy health insurance. If any of these bills is enacted, the first thing it would accomplish is the amputation of a vital part of our Constitution, and the death of another measure of our liberty." - Terence Jeffrey, Human Events
- Prev by Date: Monday Afternoon Smoke 26 Oct 09
- Next by Date: Re: Corona Old Boy Lighter Review
- Previous by thread: Re: What Doctor said this & where is he from?
- Next by thread: Re: What Doctor said this & where is he from?