Achmadinejad affirm the holocaust is a lie

[danyboy27]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8264111.stm

its amazing that even in 2009 some political figures still believe that.

its a shame that this man is supposed represent the iranian people.

[Richard Nixon]

It seems to be Iran and Ahmadinejad is working actively to surpass the level of North Korean insanity.

[Revy]

Nothing surprising here.

[danyboy27]

Nothing surprising here.

maybe its not new but it still disgusting.

[Plagueround]

When Iran denies the jewish holocaust it's called insanity (and rightly so). Here in america when we deny our holocaust, it's called thanksgiving.

[danyboy27]

When Iran denies the jewish holocaust it's called insanity (and rightly so). Here in america when we deny our holocaust, it's called thanksgiving.

whut??

[Revy]

Plagueround is referring to the national mythology surrounding Thanksgiving (Pilgrims and Indians living in peace and harmony) which is basically denial about the genocide against Native Americans.

[Richard Nixon]

The Pilgrims and Puritans both co existed peacefully with Indians for half a century until King Philip's War so not much distortion there. Also the vast majority of Amerindian deaths in the colonization of the Americas was due to disease which was mostly accidental as nobody knew better. It was unlike the real Holocaust not systematic killing of one group of people.

[danyboy27]

Plagueround is referring to the national mythology surrounding Thanksgiving (Pilgrims and Indians living in peace and harmony) which is basically denial about the genocide against Native Americans.

well, Thanksgiving is supposed to be a harvest festival or something like that.
this is the way its presented in canada anyway.

indeed north american slowly killed the indian, both voluntary and involuntary, only fools wouldnt believe that we killed indian to get the land.
i dont know how history is teached in america but in canada we learn that from a verry young age that our ancestor did really nasty thing to indian, ranging from deportation to voluntary contamination.our ancestor where vile and opportunistic.


perhaps this holiday should be used to connect with the native american in order to understand their side of the story has well?

[Plagueround]

The Pilgrims and Puritans both co existed peacefully with Indians for half a century until King Philip's War so not much distortion there. Also the vast majority of Amerindian deaths in the colonization of the Americas was due to disease which was mostly accidental as nobody knew better. It was unlike the real Holocaust not systematic killing of one group of people.

See? Denial.

While early relations with the pilgrims were peaceful for the first year or so, they began deteriorating as early as 1622. The Wampanog maintained an uneasy peace with the pilgrims, watching as they encroached and invaded neighboring tribes, with the first full scale war between settlers and indians occurring in 1637. While the first thanksgiving was a peaceful affair (largely because of Massasoit's deciding it would be wrong to let the failing pilgrims starve to death), the plymouth rock settlers celebrated over 20 of them with Metacomet's head proudly displayed rotting on a pike.

In the greater picture, while disease was indeed a huge cause of much of the death (and it's widely disputed how much was known biological warfare, we do know for a fact that some of it was), the official policy from the time of the pilgrims, and accelerated once the U.S. was a country under Washington, Jefferson, and especially Jackson was forced removal, systematic destruction, and cultural destruction/assimilation. The government participated in biological warfare, death marches, and concentration camps on a massive scale. Entire tribes were completely wiped out and have no living members while others were forced to live stagnant lifestyles on reservations and were prohibited from leaving. Children were forced into boarding schools where they experienced mental, sexual, and physical abuse on a scale that is only now being fully uncovered and understood. Everywhere you go in this country there are thousands of unmarked graves because of your government's actions. This, by the definition not only widely accepted by most of the world but the formal U.N. resolution, is genocide, and should be treated with the same distaste and condemnation as the holocaust.

You and Ahmadinejad are birds of a feather.

[Manifesto]

Also the vast majority of Amerindian deaths in the colonization of the Americas was due to disease which was mostly accidental as nobody knew better. It was unlike the real Holocaust not systematic killing of one group of people.
Um blankets?

[Plagueround]

Despite my stance, I won't rag on anyone for participating in celebrating the holiday with their families. Plus, I fucking love turkey.

[Bankotsu]

Britain also continues to deny that Neville Chamberlain's policy of letting Hitler expand east was to instigate a war between Nazi Germany and Soviet Union.

That is completely taboo in british history.

So what can we do about that?



The point of view of The Round Table was not identical with that of the Chamberlain group (which intersected, through common members, with the second circle of the Milner Group). The Round Table, speaking for the inner circle of the Milner Group, was not nearly so anti-Russian as the Chamberlain group. Accordingly, it never regarded a collision between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union as a practical solution of Europe’s problems. It did accept the idea of a four-power pact to exclude Russia from Europe, but it was not willing to allow Germany to expand eastward as she wished...

...The fallacy in all of this rests on the fact that every concession to Germany made her stronger, with no guarantee that she ever would stop; and if, after years of concessions, she refused to stop, she might be too strong to be compelled to do so. The Milner Group thesis was based not only on ignorance but also on logical deficiencies. The program of the Chamberlain group was at least more consistent, since it involved no effort to stop Germany at any point but aimed to solve the German problem by driving it into Russia. Such an “immoral” solution could not be acceptable to the Milner Group, so they should have had sense enough to stop Germany while she was weak.

http://www.yamaguchy.netfirms.com/7897401/quigley/anglo_12b.html


They continue to spread lies and falsehoods about history.

[Bankotsu]

I mean seriously how many people in britian know that it was Chamberlain who instigated the munich agreement?

They all follow the standard propaganda line and say that it was Hitler.

The truth is quite different.


I think the facts were brought to the attention of this House by certain incidents which occurred in the month of June. I ventured to call attention to a certain luncheon party which had taken place at the house of the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor), when the Prime Minister had, not an interview but table-talk, with certain American journalists, in the course of which views were expressed by the Prime Minister, noted by those correspondents, and passed on to newspapers in America.

Here is an extract from the "New York Times" of 14th May, contained in an article by "Augur":

The question may well be asked whether Mr. Chamberlain attaches importance to a settlement of the German problem in Czechoslovakia and what his idea may be. Originally the Prime Minister certainly held the view that the best way out of the deadlock was to transform Czechoslovakia into a sort of second Switzerland, with each nationality forming a separate canton and possessing far-reaching autonomy.

But expert investigation has shown drawbacks to such a scheme, and Mr. Chamberlain to-day, without prejudice naturally to the rights of the principal interested parties to decide for themselves, certainly favours a more drastic measure—namely, separation of the German districts from the body of the Czechoslovak republic and the annexation of them to Germany.

It is perfectly clear that, contrary to the knowledge of the country generally, except in so far as this article had been read, the Prime Minister then was in favour of the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia.

That may be the right policy, but if that is so, what justification is there for encouraging Czechoslovakia to spend many millions of pounds, as the British and French Governments did, on fortifications and giving them the idea that we were prepared to fight for that country? There is a wide inconsistency between the two points of view, and one which, in the circumstances, reflects no credit on the action of the British Government. I am going to quote from an article in the "New York Herald-Tribune" one further passage, because it bears upon the Four-Power Pact policy of the Government.

This article appeared on 14th May: Having signed the Italians on the dotted line Britain would now like to contact the Germans. This brings up a question of a four-Power pact, but the British prefer to label it something else, as a four-Power pact might signify to some a dictators' committee, to dictate to the rest of Europe, and the British do not appraise dictators as any more infallible than the heads of democratic countries. It is admitted that Britain would like to swing Germany and Italy into a working agreement with Britain and France to keep the peace of Europe. Soviet Russia is excluded, on the ground that it does not work in harness, with the proviso that some day Russia, if she behaves, may be admitted to-membership. Therefore, you see clearly set out there the mind of the Prime Minister, and he undoubtedly has been successful in carrying the matter through to its present position so far as he is concerned.

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1938/oct/04/european-situation#S5CV0339P0_19381004_HOC_66




While all this was going on, the remorseless wheels of appeasement were grinding out of existence one country after another. The fatal loss was Czechoslovakia. This disaster was engineered by Chamberlain with the full co-operation of the Milner Group...

The last piece of evidence which we might mention to support the theory—not of a plot, perhaps, but that the Munich surrender was unnecessary and took place because Chamberlain and his associates wanted to dismember Czechoslovakia—is even more incriminating...

http://www.yamaguchy.netfirms.com/7897401/quigley/anglo_12b.htmlThe british people they don't know.

They don't know that it was Chamberlain who wanted to dismember Czechoslovakia.

They don't know that Chamberlain deliberately let Hitler expand east to allow him to destroy USSR.

They don't know all this.

It is all completely and totally denied.

They tell lies about history.



The only country that is capable of standing up against Germany by herself is Soviet Russia. It is much easier and much more profitable to attack the British Empire than to attack Soviet Russia.

When the present Chancellor of the Exchequer was Foreign Secretary and speaking at Geneva on the Japan-Manchuria issue the representative of Japan said that the Foreign Secretary had put the case for Japan as well as he could have put it himself.

The then Foreign Secretary as the representative of the National Government was encouraging Japan in the rape of Manchuria. Japan was expected to attack Soviet Russia, but she realised that there was the possibility of richer and cheaper plunder in China—and she fell on China.

If hon. Gentlemen opposite are hugging the delusion that Germany, if allowed to become a dominant Power in Europe, will attack the Soviet Union and destroy that great Socialist Power, they had better wake up before it is too late. Germany will have no hesitation in breaking any word that was given and taking advantage of this country.

The National Government are not isolating Soviet Russia. They are isolating Britain. I do not care what armaments you have, if Britain is alone her position is impossible and the position of this Empire is impossible. The one policy for the people of this country is to have unity with the peace peoples of all other countries and to make appeal after appeal to the peoples of Germany and Italy on that basis...

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1938/oct/04/european-situation




Of these three points, the first two were shared with the Chamberlain group; the third was not.

The difference rested on the fact that the Chamberlain group hoped to permit Britain to escape from the necessity of fighting Germany by getting Russia to fight Germany.

The Chamberlain group did not share the Milner Group’s naive belief in the possibility of three great power blocs standing side by side in peace.

Lacking that belief, they preferred a German-Russian war to a British-German war.

And, having that preference, they differed from the Milner Group in their willingness to accept the partition of Poland by Germany. The Milner Group would have yielded parts of Poland to Germany if done by fair negotiation.

The Chamberlain group was quite prepared to liquidate Poland entirely, if it could be presented to the British people in terms which they would accept without demanding war...

http://www.yamaguchy.netfirms.com/7897401/quigley/anglo_12b.html

[danyboy27]

i dont think the death of indian make the death of the jews less tragic.
i actually condemn both, but this topic was about what hamadinejad said, not what some american believe about tanksgiving.
if you guy want to argues about tanksgiving make your own topic!

[Dean]

i dont think the death of indian make the death of the jews less tragic.
i actually condemn both, but this topic was about what hamadinejad said, not what some american believe about tanksgiving.
if you guy want to argues about tanksgiving make your own topic!

This ain't your topic baby. The Commies run the show here. Plagueround is 100% correct about the inconsistency.

[Bud Struggle]

Well all this is just the way we humans act. We have a tendancy to conquer those inferior to us. It's the history of the world. It's actually this tendancy that gives me serious doubts that the rationality of something like anarchism could ever work for any extended period of time for any large amount of people.

I could be wrong and I hope I am but people are good for a time and then they need an outlet. Just look at the USA right now--we should be relatlvely happy. We are prosperous most people are doing OK, and instead of helping those that aren't doing so well we are involved in a couple of vastly expensive wars trying to conquer a bunch of people that don't matter in the least to us.

And it's not like the people in Iraq are any heros--they are more than happy to slaughter each other because of slight differences in religious belief.

Look at the history of (so called) Communism. These were people who theoretically wanted to make a real difference and we got Stalin and all the rest of his Iron Curtain cronies.

And I wonder--if the people on RevLeft suddenly got power would we be any different than any of the folks that came before us?

[danyboy27]

This ain't your topic baby. The Commies run the show here. Plagueround is 100% correct about the inconsistency.

so, beccause the majority of the canadian and american population believe we where always friendly with the indian i shouldnt say nothing about hamadinejad at all?

hell, with that logic i just cant say nothing about darfur or the serbian genocide.

[mannetje]

He knows that the holocaust was a fact.
He's only out to provoce his enemy's.

[Pogue]

Well all this is just the way we humans act. We have a tendancy to conquer those inferior to us. It's the history of the world. It's actually this tendancy that gives me serious doubts that the rationality of something like anarchism could ever work for any extended period of time for any large amount of people.

I could be wrong and I hope I am but people are good for a time and then they need an outlet. Just look at the USA right now--we should be relatlvely happy. We are prosperous most people are doing OK, and instead of helping those that aren't doing so well we are involved in a couple of vastly expensive wars trying to conquer a bunch of people that don't matter in the least to us.

And it's not like the people in Iraq are any heros--they are more than happy to slaughter each other because of slight differences in religious belief.

Look at the history of (so called) Communism. These were people who theoretically wanted to make a real difference and we got Stalin and all the rest of his Iron Curtain cronies.

And I wonder--if the people on RevLeft suddenly got power would we be any different than any of the folks that came before us?

Firstly, wtf about people who are 'inferior to us?' Secondly, I want the working class to have power not myself.

[Revy]

i dont think the death of indian make the death of the jews less tragic.
i actually condemn both, but this topic was about what hamadinejad said, not what some american believe about tanksgiving.
if you guy want to argues about tanksgiving make your own topic!

http://i37.tinypic.com/dzdv2r.jpg

I couldn't resist....:cool:

[Bud Struggle]

Firstly, wtf about people who are 'inferior to us?' Secondly, I want the working class to have power not myself.


Yea, I misworded that--I meant "inferior" in strength of arms--not in any other way.

And it's nice that YOU want to have your class to have power--but how is that different than you saying that you want your race or your country or ethnic culture to have power? It's still and "us against them" way of looking at the world.

You are still thinking inside the box. And that kind of thinking still fosters an Imperialism of one sort or another.

[Pogue]

Yea, I misworded that--I meant "inferior" in strength of arms--not in any other way.

And it's nice that YOU want to have your class to have power--but how is that different than you saying that you want your race or your country or ethnic culture to have power? It's still and "us against them" way of looking at the world.

You are still thinking inside the box. And that kind of thinking still fosters an Imperialism of one sort or another.

yes i am thinking of them and us. i don't see what that has to do with imperialism, please explain.

[Bud Struggle]

yes i am thinking of them and us. i don't see what that has to do with imperialism, please explain.


It seem to me that fighting for "your" paticular side against someone elses side is the same old thing that has always been going on. Your religion against their religion, your race against their race, your country against their country, your class against their class. It seems to me to be the same old fight, couched in different terms, but the same old fight.

If we just get rid of "those guys" we're going to be doing just fine! I just think there is a better way--and that way obviously precludes Revolution. It just seems to me--even with the best intentions--"us and them fights" never achieve anything except piles of dead people. The subjects of the "us and thems" move on--but the fights remain. And maybe that's just the human nature I was talking about in my origional post. Maybe we are doomed to fight. Call it war or revolution or struggle--the human race and never stop fighting among itself.

Maybe we aren't "Brothers."

[RGacky3]

Well all this is just the way we humans act. We have a tendancy to conquer those inferior to us. It's the history of the world. It's actually this tendancy that gives me serious doubts that the rationality of something like anarchism could ever work for any extended period of time for any large amount of people.

I could be wrong and I hope I am but people are good for a time and then they need an outlet. Just look at the USA right now--we should be relatlvely happy. We are prosperous most people are doing OK, and instead of helping those that aren't doing so well we are involved in a couple of vastly expensive wars trying to conquer a bunch of people that don't matter in the least to us.

And it's not like the people in Iraq are any heros--they are more than happy to slaughter each other because of slight differences in religious belief.

Look at the history of (so called) Communism. These were people who theoretically wanted to make a real difference and we got Stalin and all the rest of his Iron Curtain cronies.

And I wonder--if the people on RevLeft suddenly got power would we be any different than any of the folks that came before us?

Wait a minute, so your a stalinist, innocent people dying and being killed is worth it if it makes a good society, if people are happy any attrocity is justified.

That is EXACTLY Stalinism, and exactly what happened during stalins regime, most people lived quite well, which I guess justifies the thousands murdered.

Your sick.

Either that or I complately misunderstand our argument, are you admiting that the US is no better than Stalinist russia? Whats your point?


Your religion against their religion, your race against their race, your country against their country, your class against their class. It seems to me to be the same old fight, couched in different terms, but the same old fight.

THeres a difference between those conflicts, religion against religion is NEVER religion against religion, thats generally an exucse, the same with race against race. Country against country, is always ruling class against ruling class over hedgemony, class against class, is the ruling class against the subjected people. Big difference.


And it's nice that YOU want to have your class to have power--but how is that different than you saying that you want your race or your country or ethnic culture to have power? It's still and "us against them" way of looking at the world.


We want to get rid of class altogether ... You know this.

[Bud Struggle]

Wait a minute, so your a stalinist, innocent people dying and being killed is worth it if it makes a good society, if people are happy any attrocity is justified.

That is EXACTLY Stalinism, and exactly what happened during stalins regime, most people lived quite well, which I guess justifies the thousands murdered. I'm not a Stalinst by any extent. I'm just saying that this is the way these seem to happen in history. I'm not condoning it--I'm just saying it happens.


Your sick. I usually get told that by women after the second date.


Either that or I complately misunderstand our argument, are you admiting that the US is no better than Stalinist russia? Whats your point? I'm saying human nature is corrupted and we have always failed each other in the past and it's likely we will do so in the future. It's not about countries--it's about who we are as humans.




There's a difference between those conflicts, religion against religion is NEVER religion against religion, thats generally an exucse, the same with race against race. Country against country, is always ruling class against ruling class over hedgemony, class against class, is the ruling class against the subjected people. Big difference. Nope it's always us against them. Nothing more: my class, my country, my school, all the same.


We want to get rid of class altogether ... You know this. The Nazis wanted to get rid of Jews altogether.

[Richard Nixon]

See? Denial.

While early relations with the pilgrims were peaceful for the first year or so, they began deteriorating as early as 1622. The Wampanog maintained an uneasy peace with the pilgrims, watching as they encroached and invaded neighboring tribes, with the first full scale war between settlers and indians occurring in 1637. While the first thanksgiving was a peaceful affair (largely because of Massasoit's deciding it would be wrong to let the failing pilgrims starve to death), the plymouth rock settlers celebrated over 20 of them with Metacomet's head proudly displayed rotting on a pike.


Actually the 1637 war was the Pilgrims allied with the Wampanog against a common enemy.


In the greater picture, while disease was indeed a huge cause of much of the death (and it's widely disputed how much was known biological warfare, we do know for a fact that some of it was), the official policy from the time of the pilgrims, and accelerated once the U.S. was a country under Washington, Jefferson, and especially Jackson was forced removal, systematic destruction, and cultural destruction/assimilation. The government participated in biological warfare, death marches, and concentration camps on a massive scale. Entire tribes were completely wiped out and have no living members while others were forced to live stagnant lifestyles on reservations and were prohibited from leaving. Children were forced into boarding schools where they experienced mental, sexual, and physical abuse on a scale that is only now being fully uncovered and understood. Everywhere you go in this country there are thousands of unmarked graves because of your government's actions. This, by the definition not only widely accepted by most of the world but the formal U.N. resolution, is genocide, and should be treated with the same distaste and condemnation as the holocaust.

You and Ahmadinejad are birds of a feather.

I agree there was ethnic cleansing against Amerindians especially against the Cherokee under President Jackson and while the frontiersmen and settlers wanted all the Indians dead (like say George Custer) the politicians back in Washington certainly did not wish so at least after Jackson.

[SouthernBelle82]

The only reason is because the Bush admin bullied them. How anyone in 2009 can think that is ridiculous! It's only the most documented crime ever.

[SouthernBelle82]

Plagueround is referring to the national mythology surrounding Thanksgiving (Pilgrims and Indians living in peace and harmony) which is basically denial about the genocide against Native Americans.

Yep. Everyone should read "A People's History of the United States" by Howard Zinn.

[SouthernBelle82]

Well all this is just the way we humans act. We have a tendancy to conquer those inferior to us. It's the history of the world. It's actually this tendancy that gives me serious doubts that the rationality of something like anarchism could ever work for any extended period of time for any large amount of people.

I could be wrong and I hope I am but people are good for a time and then they need an outlet. Just look at the USA right now--we should be relatlvely happy. We are prosperous most people are doing OK, and instead of helping those that aren't doing so well we are involved in a couple of vastly expensive wars trying to conquer a bunch of people that don't matter in the least to us.

And it's not like the people in Iraq are any heros--they are more than happy to slaughter each other because of slight differences in religious belief.

Look at the history of (so called) Communism. These were people who theoretically wanted to make a real difference and we got Stalin and all the rest of his Iron Curtain cronies.

And I wonder--if the people on RevLeft suddenly got power would we be any different than any of the folks that came before us?

Are they inferior or do we make them that way? One of the first things in war that happens is to make the other side less than human. I like to think we Commies do something different than other people: we evolve. Communism asks you to be better than just an average human.

[Robert]

These comparisons between the U.S. government's policies of assistance to American Indians in the 19th century and the Nazi policy of exterminating Jews, and particularly the stereotype of the corrupt Indian agent, are as fashionable as they are childish, lazy and ignorant. They slander the names of many good people in government who sympathised fully with the Indian, consistent with their mission of improving their lot, and lobbied for their fair treatment.

This is a representative report from the Bureau of Indian Affairs. I have read dozens of the same tenor. Yes, it is patronizing to be sure, and but not even racist, never mind genocidal. If you find anything written by Josef Goebbels even remotely comparable, please post it.

It is [the indians'] desire that this reservation be kept exclusively for Indians, and this is but natural. They have learned to dread the white man, his avarice and cupidity, and they are not to blame for this. They realize that they must learn to work and take care of themselves, and they are willing to do this, but they have an aversion to being crowded on every side by men who have no friendship for the Indian. There is, in fact, no reason why this reservation may not be held intact for Indians.
As they so much desire, and without reasonable doubt, with vigorous and wise management, we will have a State inhabited by pure-blooded Indians as progressive, intelligent, and rich as any community in the now western country, and all this accomplished in not to exceed twenty-five years. No bands of Indians have ever been able to cope with the whites, and when thrown among them they invariably have dwindled down to almost nothing, becoming a degraded, begging class. As "a matter of humanity and charity, which our great country can well afford to extend the Indian, that this last reservation and hope be reserved and assured for them exclusively, they ask that the Jerome treaty be withdrawn from the Senate, that the same be not confirmed; and as their agent, I must earnestly urge that the plea of these Indians under my charge be favorably considered.

Very respectfully,

Frank D. Baldwin,
('aptain, Fifth Infantry, United States Army,

Acting United States Indian Agent. The Commissioner Of Indian Affairs

http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA233&lpg=PA175&dq=corrupt%20indian%20agents&sig=9qx6uWWEDjDWct-E2EKB23KLFtM&ei=7Ia5SqCdDo-wtgfT8PD7Dg&ct=result&id=7tkRAAAAYAAJ&ots=cqUdnaZrr7&output=text

[Plagueround]

These comparisons between the U.S. government's policies of assistance to American Indians in the 19th century and the Nazi policy of exterminating Jews,

The 19th century saw little sympathy for indians and I am absolutely disgusted that you would try to paint the mainstream opinion and official policy as benevolent, going on to then say:


and particularly the stereotype of the corrupt Indian agent, are as fashionableHardly fashionable where I come from. You may have heard of these places, they're called reservations.


as they are childish, lazy and ignorant.If by this you mean formulated by countless hours spent pouring over dozens of books ranging from left wing perspectives by the likes of Howard Zinn to AN OFFICIAL HISTORY OF THE AMERICAN POLICY WRITTEN DURING THE NIXON ADMINISTRATION. This is not a subject I've just taken a stance on because of the color of my skin. It also does not escape me that you've taken the opinion that many indians hold about what was done to us and used three common words used to slander us. Nice.


They slander the names of many good people in government who sympathised fully with the Indian, consistent with their mission of improving their lot, and lobbied for their fair treatment.The views of a handful of politicians does not excuse officially enacted policy, especially in the years you've chosen, where we see some of the worst abuses. We also had politicians sympathetic to blacks during the time, but I'm pretty sure the official policy was still one of slavery. (And yes, indians did have slaves).


This is a representative report from the Bureau of Indian Affairs. I have read dozens of the same tenor. Yes, it is patronizing to be sure, and but not even racist, never mind genocidal. If you find anything written by Josef Goebbels even remotely comparable, please post it.
That's all well and good. But it doesn't excuse the trail of tears, the wounded knee massacre, the hundreds of forced removals, the starvation, sickness, and poverty of reservation life, the open cultural destruction, abuse, murder, and rape suffered at boarding schools, and the self-affirmed, "god approved", government stamped policy to completely destroy indians, whether culturally or physically.

I know you've spent the week already apologizing for your racist remarks about asians, but please, spare me the fucking apologism and dismissal on this one.

[#FF0000]

The Nazis wanted to get rid of Jews altogether.

What a bizarre non-sequitur.

[Plagueround]

Actually the 1637 war was the Pilgrims allied with the Wampanog against a common enemy.


The Wampanog maintained an uneasy peace with the pilgrims, watching as they encroached and invaded neighboring tribes, with the first full scale war between settlers and indians occurring in 1637.



I agree there was ethnic cleansing against Amerindians especially against the Cherokee under President Jackson and while the frontiersmen and settlers wanted all the Indians dead (like say George Custer) the politicians back in Washington certainly did not wish so at least after Jackson.Martin Van Buren continued Jackson's policies and escalated a war against the Seminoles. It was also during his presidency that Federal troops forced 15,000 Cherokees into detention camps.

William Henry Harrison died after 20 days, but spent much of his political and military career advocating indian removal, taking territory by killing them or swindling them.

Zachary Taylor, in addition to being an indian fighter under Van Buren, the reservation policy began taking shape under his presidency, being enacted in 1851 under Millard Fillmore.

You know what, I could keep going and exhaust everyone all night with this...it doesn't get any better until, ironically, LBJ and Nixon...and even then what little land is left is still threatened by corporations and both mainstream political parties still trying to destroy indian sovereignty.

I'm not going to do this with any of you anymore. You'll decry the Iranians but make excuses for Americans. I know my history and I know the pain of my parents, my grandparents, and my relatives. I see it every single day. Despite my protest on this site...I've learned to live with it. I've learned to fight it in the only way that makes sense.

I am tired of fighting. Our Chiefs are killed; Looking Glass is dead, Ta Hool Hool Shute is dead. The old men are all dead. It is the young men who say yes or no. He who led on the young men is dead. It is cold, and we have no blankets; the little children are freezing to death. My people, some of them, have run away to the hills, and have no blankets, no food. No one knows where they are - perhaps freezing to death. I want to have time to look for my children, and see how many of them I can find. Maybe I shall find them among the dead. Hear me, my Chiefs! I am tired; my heart is sick and sad. From where the sun now stands I will fight no more forever.

[Bankotsu]

And don't forget me.

Don't fuck with me on Britain's appeasement policy of Hitler.

Don't give me bullshit.

Don't give me lies.

Don't you dare come and give me fuck about Chamberlain's policies on Nazi Germany.

I know my history on Chamberlain's policies.

Don't come fuck with me.

Don't give me motherfucking denial on WWII history.



And by this date, certain members of the Milner Group and of the British Conservative government had reached the fantastic idea that they could kill two birds with one stone by setting Germany and Russia against one another in Eastern Europe.

In this way they felt that the two enemies would stalemate one another, or that Germany would become satisfied with the oil of Rumania and the wheat of the Ukraine. It never occurred to anyone in a responsible position that Germany and Russia might make common cause, even temporarily, against the West. Even less did it occur to them that Russia might beat Germany and thus open all Central Europe to Bolshevism.

This idea of bringing Germany into a collision with Russia was not to be found, so far as the evidence shows, among any members of the inner circle of the Milner Group.

Rather it was to be found among the personal associates of Neville Chamberlain, including several members of the second circle of the Milner Group. The two policies followed parallel courses until March 1939. After that date the Milner Group’s disintegration became very evident, and part of it took the form of the movement of several persons (like Hoare and Simon) from the second circle of the Milner Group to the inner circle of the new group rotating around Chamberlain. This process was concealed by the fact that this new group was following, in public at least, the policy desired by the Milner Group; their own policy, which was really the continuation of appeasement for another year after March 1939, was necessarily secret, so that the contrast between the Chamberlain group and the inner circle of the Milner Group in the period after March 1939 was not as obvious as it might have been.


In order to carry out this plan of allowing Germany to drive eastward against Russia, it was necessary to do three things:


(1) to liquidate all the countries standing between Germany and Russia;

(2) to prevent France from honoring her alliances with these countries; and


(3) to hoodwink the English people into accepting this as a necessary, indeed, the only solution to the international problem.

The Chamberlain group were so successful in all three of these things that they came within an ace of succeeding, and failed only because of the obstinacy of the Poles, the unseemly haste of Hitler, and the fact that at the eleventh hour the Milner Group realized the implications of their policy and tried to reverse it...

http://www.yamaguchy.netfirms.com/7897401/quigley/anglo_12b.html

When it comes to Neville Chamberlain, when it comes to Munich agreement, when it comes to 1938 and 1939 in europe - don't you motherfucking come and fuck with me.

You will be fucking with the wrong guy.

[spiltteeth]

A Thanksgiving Prayer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8m_J6sXj_0

[Bud Struggle]

What a bizarre non-sequitur.

Your right it is unfair--but the point still remains that there is this constant refrain in human history: "if we just get rid of X people everything will be wonderful."

We always blame someone else for out problems or our failures. It's the Jews, the Germans, the Soviets, the Americans, the rich, the Democrats the Republicans, etc. I suppose when we are all the same there will finally no one else to blame for our troubles.

[Robert]

This is not a subject I've just taken a stance on because of the color of my skin. It also does not escape me that you've taken the opinion that many indians hold about what was done to us and used three common words used to slander us. Nice.

Oh, come off it, Plague. I quoted a 19th century Army officer and acting agent, writing an official government report to a major agency, lauding the Indians and condemning white transgressions and abuses. And he wasn't an LBJ appointee either. If you consider that a slander or -- "racist," I am now?:rolleyes: -- then you're in Wonderland and need to get out fast.

As for your ancestors, we've all got tragic stories in our ancestors' backgrounds. If you have some current grievance, work to redress it. Nobody can undo Wounded Knee.

[Dean]

It seem to me that fighting for "your" paticular side against someone elses side is the same old thing that has always been going on. Your religion against their religion, your race against their race, your country against their country, your class against their class. It seems to me to be the same old fight, couched in different terms, but the same old fight.

If we just get rid of "those guys" we're going to be doing just fine! I just think there is a better way--and that way obviously precludes Revolution. It just seems to me--even with the best intentions--"us and them fights" never achieve anything except piles of dead people. The subjects of the "us and thems" move on--but the fights remain. And maybe that's just the human nature I was talking about in my origional post. Maybe we are doomed to fight. Call it war or revolution or struggle--the human race and never stop fighting among itself.

Maybe we aren't "Brothers."

It's not "getting rid of those guys." It's getting rid of the conditions that foster and empower that class. Unlike other systems of contradiction, class war is symptomatic to capital, and only goes away once the elite class loses its power. In other forms of "us and them," for instance, when the other side is liquidated, the movement fails. For communists, when the ruling class is liquidated, we prevail. Furthermore, the ruling class does not necessarily have to shed a drop of blood - in fact, a peaceful revolution, if possible, is a much smoother option which would allow communism to manifest more quickly.

Marxists don't believe in "right in wrong" when we talk of material conditions and historical compulsions. We don't want to fight any more bourgoeis than we have to.

[Dimentio]

Oh, come off it, Plague. I quoted a 19th century Army officer and acting agent, writing an official government report to a major agency, lauding the Indians and condemning white transgressions and abuses. And he wasn't an LBJ appointee either. If you consider that a slander or -- "racist," I am now?:rolleyes: -- then you're in Wonderland and need to get out fast.

As for your ancestors, we've all got tragic stories in our ancestors' backgrounds. If you have some current grievance, work to redress it. Nobody can undo Wounded Knee.

Certainly, there were colonial agents of all governments who sympathised with the victims of imperialism. That doesn't make it any more acceptable. The reservations ossified Native American society and create an artificial social order where chiefs and government agents took control of the lives of the people living there.

[danyboy27]

It's not "getting rid of those guys." It's getting rid of the conditions that foster and empower that class. Unlike other systems of contradiction, class war is symptomatic to capital, and only goes away once the elite class loses its power. In other forms of "us and them," for instance, when the other side is liquidated, the movement fails. For communists, when the ruling class is liquidated, we prevail. Furthermore, the ruling class does not necessarily have to shed a drop of blood - in fact, a peaceful revolution, if possible, is a much smoother option which would allow communism to manifest more quickly.

Marxists don't believe in "right in wrong" when we talk of material conditions and historical compulsions. We don't want to fight any more bourgoeis than we have to.

if all marxist would think like you it would be fine, but a lot of leftist believe in "right in wrong", what can you do against it?

[Plagueround]

Oh, come off it, Plague. I quoted a 19th century Army officer and acting agent, writing an official government report to a major agency, lauding the Indians and condemning white transgressions and abuses. And he wasn't an LBJ appointee either. If you consider that a slander or -- "racist," I am now?:rolleyes: -- then you're in Wonderland and need to get out fast.

Well, I said I was done, but I do feel the need to comment on this.

I'm not talking about the quote you posted, the guy sounds great, and yes, there were many people in and out of government speaking genuinely on the indians behalf. They should be remembered and commended, but they do not excuse the official policies enacted to destroy indians. What disturbs me is your words on the subject and what you sought to prove with them. What you did by using that quote as evidence for your claims is akin to "Well, Oskar Schindler tried to save the jews, so you're insulting his memory by talking about the Nazis like that".

As far as your extremely questionable word choice...You don't consider it at all, even a tad, ironic, that you called those who see the destruction of indians as horrific as the holocaust "childish, lazy, and ignorant"? I don't think you're racist per se, but I think you completely miss when you're saying racial charged things.


As for your ancestors, we've all got tragic stories in our ancestors' backgrounds. If you have some current grievance, work to redress it. Nobody can undo Wounded Knee.Nobody can undo wounded knee, but they make excuses for it. Only the outright crazies deny the holocaust in such a manner. And, although I though I made it clear that while the struggle for self-determination has gotten better, the issue of indian sovereignty is far from over. My current grievances could fill encyclopedias. You think I'm doing nothing about them?

[danyboy27]

holocaust is bad, the massacer of indian are bad.

cant we just all agree on that and condemn all together both action?

[Phalanx]

It seem to me that fighting for "your" paticular side against someone elses side is the same old thing that has always been going on. Your religion against their religion, your race against their race, your country against their country, your class against their class. It seems to me to be the same old fight, couched in different terms, but the same old fight.

If we just get rid of "those guys" we're going to be doing just fine! I just think there is a better way--and that way obviously precludes Revolution. It just seems to me--even with the best intentions--"us and them fights" never achieve anything except piles of dead people. The subjects of the "us and thems" move on--but the fights remain. And maybe that's just the human nature I was talking about in my origional post. Maybe we are doomed to fight. Call it war or revolution or struggle--the human race and never stop fighting among itself.

Maybe we aren't "Brothers."

What an excellent post. If I knew how to thank posts, I would definitely do it.

But it's true, the human race, just like any other species, is designed to compete for survival. Early in our history, we competed with wolves for game, and seeing how most wolf populations are either extinct or endangered, you can tell how we dealt with them.

As soon as our population started getting bigger, the human race began to compete with each other- for food, water, and just about any resource we thought useful. The North Americans' atrocities are terrible, to be certain, but it's absolutely nothing new in our history. Same with the Holocaust, which shocking because it occurred in an industrialized country.

We can say it's terrible and atrocious, but unfortunately it's just the way of nature. Wolf packs up north in Wisconsin sometimes kill entire herds of deer, many times only eating part or none of the deer. Our kill gene, just like any predator, is something we've found that we can control most of the time, but under the wrong circumstances we can commit the most vile of crimes.

[RGacky3]

I'm not a Stalinst by any extent. I'm just saying that this is the way these seem to happen in history. I'm not condoning it--I'm just saying it happens.

Then I suppose slavery was also the natural way of things right?


I'm saying human nature is corrupted and we have always failed each other in the past and it's likely we will do so in the future. It's not about countries--it's about who we are as humans.

Human nature is a very very complicated subject and is shaped probably mostly by our surroundings. The question is should we encourage the negative aspects or the positive?


Nope it's always us against them. Nothing more: my class, my country, my school, all the same.

Well then sir I repeat.


There's a difference between those conflicts, religion against religion is NEVER religion against religion, thats generally an exucse, the same with race against race. Country against country, is always ruling class against ruling class over hedgemony, class against class, is the ruling class against the subjected people. Big difference.

I just explained why you were wrong, you can't just repeat it.


The Nazis wanted to get rid of Jews altogether.

What in hell are you talking about??? So your suggesting getting rid of the class system (which does'nt involve any murder) which is the same really as getting rid of hte slave system was back in the day is similar to the genocide of an ethnicity???

ARE YOU INSANE???


We always blame someone else for out problems or our failures. It's the Jews, the Germans, the Soviets, the Americans, the rich, the Democrats the Republicans, etc. I suppose when we are all the same there will finally no one else to blame for our troubles.

No one here is blaiming a group of people, we are blaming a system of priviledge and power.

[Robert]

called those who see the destruction of indians as horrific as the holocaust "childish, lazy, and ignorant"?I'm not talking about the Indians being childish, lazy and ignorant! I'm talking about anti-American critics of every color, typically American liberal uni students and their profs, who won't give the USA a break on ANYTHING.

The murder of one Native American is as bad as the murder of one Jew. Of course. The sympathy for the Indians in the past (I follow your cue in using that word) is understandable. I share it. But this over-weening, protracted outrage over it, a la "Chief" Ward Churchill the Fraud, is childish, yes. There comes a point where we have to look forward, not backward.

The laziness comes in the refusal to do any research from original sources on white-Indian relations as I have, swallowing instead the current and predictable anti-European propaganda written by America-hating intellectuals. I concede you may have done more than I have.

The ignorance label goes hand in glove with the former, but the problem here really is in the refusal to recognize that reservations were not extermination camps like Treblinka Auschwitz or Buchenwald. I'm not going to waste time pointing out the many differences.

The Oskar Schindler analogy is also misplaced. He was a rogue, Jewish sympathizer probably risking his life, not a deputy of Goebbels or Himmler implementing official policy.

As for this:
I am tired of fighting. Our Chiefs are killed; Looking Glass is dead, Ta Hool Hool Shute is dead. The old men are all dead. It is the young men who say yes or no. He who led on the young men is dead. It is cold, and we have no blankets; the little children are freezing to death. My people, some of them, have run away to the hills, and have no blankets, no food. No one knows where they are - perhaps freezing to death. I want to have time to look for my children, and see how many of them I can find. Maybe I shall find them among the dead. Hear me, my Chiefs! I am tired; my heart is sick and sad. From where the sun now stands I will fight no more forever.
Oh. You're tired? You're giving up? Sorry, Plague, but you can't get off that easy. You have responsibilities just like everybody else. You're not a kid, and you're not a worn out old man, either.


I don't think you're racist per seOh. Well, keep a close eye on me just in case.

[RGacky3]

typically American liberal uni students and their profs, who won't give the USA a break on ANYTHING.


I guess we should ALSO give Stalin credit for raising the living standards and life expectancy? Also for universal healthcare? Really now.

[Plagueround]

I'm not talking about the Indians being childish, lazy and ignorant! I'm talking about anti-American critics of every color, typically American liberal uni students and their profs, who won't give the USA a break on ANYTHING.

Well, in this case, you are talking to an indian. If you're calling me out on my analysis, one that comes from research and personal experience, the one that sparked this debate, and the one that prompted your reply, then it seems you would be speaking about me and the people around me. As I said, I don't think your word choice was even intentional, but it was rather unfortunate.


The Oskar Schindler analogy is also misplaced. He was a rogue, Jewish sympathizer probably risking his life, not a deputy of Goebbels or Himmler implementing official policy.

Would it make you feel better if I used someone like Goerdeler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Friedrich_Goerdeler)? Understand that I'm well aware no situation is black or white. Not every politician is a thieving murderering racist and indians were not innocent nature loving saints, just as not every member of the Nazi party was all for tossing people alive into ovens or gassing them. However, it is absolutely undeniable what the U.S. governments policy was and how it falls under the definition of genocide. The U.S. just tries to justify, marginalize or deny it. This is why they were among a handful of nations that rejected the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Please understand that I'm not asking for everyone to fall on their knees and repent for the murders of ancestors I'll never get back, all I want is recognition of these things for what they were. You accuse these critics of being stuck in the past, but it is mainstream america, not them, who are living on the assumption of an idealized, romanticised, fictional version of their past...something that they use to this very day to justify the behavior of the nation and its government. How are we to move forward if our very conception of the world around us is a dire falsehood?


As for this: Oh. You're tired? You're giving up? Sorry, Plague, but you can't get off that easy. You have responsibilities just like everybody else. You're not a kid, and you're not a worn out old man, either.

You do realize where that came from right? It was Chief Joseph's speech to deliver to General Howard as he and his tribe gave up running and submitted to reservations. It was simply me being creative in saying I wanted to be done discussing the matter. Obviously I'm not in his position and I'm bad at just shutting up...so I'll keep talking.


Oh. Well, keep a close eye on me just in case.

I don't think anyone needs to keep an eye on you. I just think you, and people on this forum in general, need to fully understand the implications of what they say. One of the reasons I actually appreciate having some of you here is because you keep some of members honest and pry what they really mean out of them when they start spouting party line nonsense that they themselves may have not even thought through. In the same manner, I'm going to call you out on this kind of thing. Generally speaking, I like you, Tom, and Danyboy as much as many of our regular users. My apologies if I've been especially harsh on you in this subject. Obviously, it riles me up more than most topics do.

As a side note, I promise that in the coming days, I will do my best to treat OI with fairness and objectivity. (Cryptic! ;))

[Bud Struggle]

Then I suppose slavery was also the natural way of things right? Nothing is "natural." Capitalism isn't natural neither is Anarchism. Everything is made up as we go along. There's no progress in history--things (shit) just happen.


Human nature is a very very complicated subject and is shaped probably mostly by our surroundings. The question is should we encourage the negative aspects or the positive?We should encourage the positive but be prepared for the negative.


Well then sir I repeat.
I just explained why you were wrong, you can't just repeat it. That's all very well if you believe that Marxist way of thinking and want to view things from the point of view of a Communist lifestyle, but it's not a commonly held belief in the United States. It's an interesting explaination of how things work--I'm more of a shit happens person as noted above. Actually randomness.


What in hell are you talking about??? So your suggesting getting rid of the class system (which does'nt involve any murder) which is the same really as getting rid of hte slave system was back in the day is similar to the genocide of an ethnicity???

ARE YOU INSANE??? You are right: it's more like in the 1390s in Spain when the Catholics converted all of the Jews (Muranos) and then everyone was Catholic and all the same and lived happily ever after.


No one here is blaiming a group of people, we are blaming a system of priviledge and power. Some people will always accumulate power. It's human nature.

[danyboy27]

Nothing is "natural." Capitalism isn't natural neither is Anarchism. Everything is made up as we go along. There's no progress in history--things (shit) just happen.



i dont agree with you tom, au contraire, things change with time and somehow progress. if you look at the way diplomatic relation and wars where fought 200 year ago, things where far more barbaric back then.

humanity learn, slowly but its learn. capitalism is a phase in that learning and i do believe that communism will eventually be the ultimate result of our evolution. I dont make myself too much illusion, those kind of changes take a LOt of time, i will probably will not be there to see it, but i am still confident that it will happen.




Some people will always accumulate power. It's human nature.

i think human nature is something that change over time trought the evolution of man. yes people are somehow selfish but it was far worst 100 year ago!
we will change, survival might be the key element in the equation.

[Richard Nixon]

Martin Van Buren continued Jackson's policies and escalated a war against the Seminoles. It was also during his presidency that Federal troops forced 15,000 Cherokees into detention camps.

William Henry Harrison died after 20 days, but spent much of his political and military career advocating indian removal, taking territory by killing them or swindling them.

Zachary Taylor, in addition to being an indian fighter under Van Buren, the reservation policy began taking shape under his presidency, being enacted in 1851 under Millard Fillmore.

You know what, I could keep going and exhaust everyone all night with this...it doesn't get any better until, ironically, LBJ and Nixon...and even then what little land is left is still threatened by corporations and both mainstream political parties still trying to destroy indian sovereignty.

I'm not going to do this with any of you anymore. You'll decry the Iranians but make excuses for Americans. I know my history and I know the pain of my parents, my grandparents, and my relatives. I see it every single day. Despite my protest on this site...I've learned to live with it. I've learned to fight it in the only way that makes sense.

I am tired of fighting. Our Chiefs are killed; Looking Glass is dead, Ta Hool Hool Shute is dead. The old men are all dead. It is the young men who say yes or no. He who led on the young men is dead. It is cold, and we have no blankets; the little children are freezing to death. My people, some of them, have run away to the hills, and have no blankets, no food. No one knows where they are - perhaps freezing to death. I want to have time to look for my children, and see how many of them I can find. Maybe I shall find them among the dead. Hear me, my Chiefs! I am tired; my heart is sick and sad. From where the sun now stands I will fight no more forever.

Actual information on the Pequot War: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pequot_War

It was a war against the Pequots by the Pilgrims and their allies the Narrangansett and Mohecan. This pattern of the Indians allying with the settlers against other Indians is a very common pattern for instance the various Mexican tribes who aided Cortez against the Aztecs.

It doesn't get any better until Johnson and Nixon? What about President Calvin Coolidge who gave the Indians the vote and citizenship in 1924. I guess you probably hate President Coolidge as he was an ultra laissez faire capitalist but you have to admit this was one good thing he did.

I understand your pain but as others have said all people have probably had their ancestors injusticed even if it's you great-great x200 grandfather Ug got murdered by Boog. I as an Korean American probably had some Mongols or Jurchen or Khitai and other Tartar barbarians attack Korea and rape/murder my ancestors.

[Plagueround]

Actual information on the Pequot War: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pequot_War

It was a war against the Pequots by the Pilgrims and their allies the Narrangansett and Mohecan. This pattern of the Indians allying with the settlers against other Indians is a very common pattern for instance the various Mexican tribes who aided Cortez against the Aztecs.

What have I said that makes you think I know nothing about the Pequot War? It is borderline insulting that you would continue to assert this after I've acknowledged what will now be 3 times that indians would sometimes ally with settlers and later the government. This is nothing new in the history of oppressed races, and it doesn't somehow magically change...and I'm almost exhausted typing this...the attitude and policy regarding indians in general. While not the case in the Pequot War, many times the tribes helping the U.S. were ones that were already subjugated.


It doesn't get any better until Johnson and Nixon? What about President Calvin Coolidge who gave the Indians the vote and citizenship in 1924. I guess you probably hate President Coolidge as he was an ultra laissez faire capitalist but you have to admit this was one good thing he did.While it was a good thing in a sense, indians still had little say in their affairs and the discriminatory laws against them were still upheld much in the same way that blacks were held back. Only in the 1970s did we even begin to obtain the tools necessary for self-determination (largely in part, I would say, to the work of AIM and the civil rights movement).


I understand your pain but as others have said all people have probably had their ancestors injusticed even if it's you great-great x200 grandfather Ug got murdered by Boog. I as an Korean American probably had some Mongols or Jurchen or Khitai and other Tartar barbarians attack Korea and rape/murder my ancestors.However, we're not talking about things that have little bearing on current events. Come visit sometime...we're still learning how to shake off the effects of what was done, some tribes with tremendous success (and ironically, some are also experience the emergence of deeping class divisions within the tribe) and some with the horrible and tragic conditions of places like Pine Ridge. All I ask from you is the same consideration the victims of the holocaust have been extended in that you stop apologizing or coming up with justifications for what was done and start looking toward ways to ensure things like this do not happen again, to anyone, ever.

[Comrade B]

The Pilgrims and Puritans both co existed peacefully with Indians for half a century until King Philip's War so not much distortion there. Also the vast majority of Amerindian deaths in the colonization of the Americas was due to disease which was mostly accidental as nobody knew better. It was unlike the real Holocaust not systematic killing of one group of people.
haha, this made me laugh

I am from a town called Walla Walla, its history is fucking glorious....
The natives lived there peacefully for years, then some lovely missionaries called the Whitman family came along, they poisoned the natives with tainted melons and treated them like dirt in general. One day the Whitmans fail to fulfill the only role that the natives kept them around for, medicine. Enraged, a group of natives killed the Marcus Whitman and his wife (who, if you read her letters, deserved it even more).
The next few years for the tribe were marked by being chased around the state, while the US tried to kill their entire tribe off. In the end, a small group decides to take the blame for the attack on the Whitman family, and they are all hanged.

You should also check out the history of California... that was genocide, no other word.

But yes, Achmadinijad is a douche, just as the US leaders are douches. We commies hate all class oppressors, whether they are religious or capitalist.
I only wish that this ass hole wouldn't associate his stupid as beliefs with the movement for Palestinian liberation.

[danyboy27]

. All I ask from you is the same consideration the victims of the holocaust have been extended in that you stop apologizing or coming up with justifications for what was done and start looking toward ways to ensure things like this do not happen again, to anyone, ever.


i completly agree with you on this one.

the number of people killed and even the strenght of the violence used dosnt really matter, what matter is the result, both in the case of the holocaust and in the case of the native, the result was horrible.

you know guy, i like you most of the time, but i dont understand why you insist on finding excuses to minimise the situation in the case of the indian.

seriously, is it that hard to admit that your governement action ultimately cause the near inxtinction of another ethnic group?

just in case, you really dont have any reason to feel guilty for it, nobody is responsable of this mess except the people who where there back then.

my governement did a lot of stupid and horribles things back then, things that caused the death of thousand of native american, and i am not feeling any shame, its happened, it was horrible, lets learn from it.

also, a good action never excuse a bad one, it dosnt work that way. stuff happen, remember the good, remember the bad, that the way it is.

[Qayin]

my governement did a lot of stupid and horribles things back then, things that caused the death of thousand of native american, and i am not feeling any shame, its happened, it was horrible, lets learn from it.
Hiroshima? Dresden?

erm who else after the Natives...
Oppressed the Africans,Oppressed the Latinos

Now we cant event get the fuck out of Iraq and Afganistan. Iraq was a bullshit war from the start and we are still there, the US government learns nothing from the past.


Some people will always accumulate power. It's human nature. Hey guys I somehow figured out Human Nature even though marxists already hit the spot
that human nature is deprived from there material conditions, but hey lets ignore that!
Their must be this mystical magical thing we were born with
that no one can quite figure out and is the best
scapegoat when we cant put out a good argument!


There's no progress in history--things (shit) just happen.Yeah,that's why we all run around nude in tribes still and talk in grunts still.
Thats why we all think witchs exist and kings are descendants from god.
Progress exists.


It's an interesting explaination of how things work--I'm more of a shit happens person as noted above. Actually randomness.Randomness must explain why there is a ruling class and the third world is exploited!
Damn Marxists for trying to analyze society,who would of known.

and your signature

There can be no Communist practice without Communist theory. Primitive communism existed without theory, no current system can
exist without theory. Capitalism is the same.

[9]

just in case, you really dont have any reason to feel guilty for it, nobody is responsable of this mess except the people who where there back then.

my governement did a lot of stupid and horribles things back then, things that caused the death of thousand of native american, and i am not feeling any shame, its happened, it was horrible, lets learn from it.

also, a good action never excuse a bad one, it dosnt work that way. stuff happen, remember the good, remember the bad, that the way it is.

In the case of the Native Americans - not to mention the countless other populations across the globe who have suffered and continue to suffer under US and US-backed colonialism/capitalism/imperialism - this is not merely a matter of 'bad decisions which are in the past now, and let's move on there's no sense in feeling bad about something that is behind us'. Believe it or not, there are actually still Native Americans in the Americas!! They are still suffering monumentally from the actions of the colonialist settlers/governments/capitalist class, and these actions against them persist to this day and will continue into the future. I don't want to derail this thread much further, but you cannot consign to the pages of history a people still in existence.

[danyboy27]

Hiroshima? Dresden?

erm who else after the Natives...
Oppressed the Africans,Oppressed the Latinos

Now we cant event get the fuck out of Iraq and Afganistan. Iraq was a bullshit war from the start and we are still there, the US government learns nothing from the past.

.

i never mentionned that i was proud of what happened either, But there is no point of being ashamed of ourselves beccause of the past of our ancestor, this is just plain stupid. i also never mentionned that i was supporting my governement. i didnt said we HAVE learned, i said we SHOULD learn, big difference there.

[danyboy27]

In the case of the Native Americans - not to mention the countless other populations across the globe who have suffered and continue to suffer under US and US-backed colonialism/capitalism/imperialism - this is not merely a matter of 'bad decisions which are in the past now, and let's move on there's no sense in feeling bad about something that is behind us'. Believe it or not, there are actually still Native Americans in the Americas!! They are still suffering monumentally from the actions of the colonialist settlers/governments/capitalist class, and these actions against them persist to this day and will continue into the future. I don't want to derail this thread much further, but you cannot consign to the pages of history a people still in existence.

will guilt or shame improve anything for the native americain in short and long term? no. We should aknowledge the bad stuff that have been done in the past in order to make things better in the futur, and this include better treatement and greater recogniton of the native americans.

then again, a little notice for those who seem to think i suport the state, remember that i used the word SHOULD. tanks you.

[Bud Struggle]

Hey guys I somehow figured out Human Nature even though marxists already hit the spot
that human nature is deprived from there material conditions, but hey lets ignore that!
Their must be this mystical magical thing we were born with
that no one can quite figure out and is the best
scapegoat when we cant put out a good argument! There is a lot more to life than materialist conditions.


Yeah,that's why we all run around nude in tribes still and talk in grunts still.
Thats why we all think witchs exist and kings are descendants from god.
Progress exists. Is life better now than when we were all hunter gatherers? Is life better with mass wars and mass famines and totalitarian countries running people's lives? Is that what you call progress? Is life better for the Indians of Brazil or natives of Africa now that they have "civilization?" You can't just look down on the way other people have lived their lives and dismiss their lives as meaningless because you have TV.


Randomness must explain why there is a ruling class and the third world is exploited! Ever wonder WHY the third world isn't exploiting us?


and your signature
Primitive communism existed without theory, no current system can
exist without theory. Capitalism is the same.
I agree there!

[Qayin]

There is a lot more to life than materialist conditions.
Care to elaborate?


Is life better now than when we were all hunter gatherers? Is life better with mass wars and mass famines and totalitarian countries running people's lives? Is that what you call progress? Is life better for the Indians of Brazil or natives of Africa now that they have "civilization?" You can't just look down on the way other people have lived their lives and dismiss their lives as meaningless because you have TV.
No because wars and such are reactionary,but the whole world is not at war nor is every country in totalitarianism.
Example of progress? Im online talking to you,I can talk to a person around the world in seconds now. Human progress? Human emotions,rational thought,and appreciation for art and music in evolutionary sense. The Natives are in a bad situation due to racism against natives that exists within Latin America. It is getting better though as we see in Bolivia with Evo morales. Africa is just fucked because of capitalism and a long history of imperialism,colonialism,and apathied. But all of that is changing slowly, just like I said with witchs and monarchs,the tide of progress is bound to come.


Ever wonder WHY the third world isn't exploiting us?
Because the first world uses the 3rd world as a cheap labor force.

[Bud Struggle]

Care to elaborate? Sure. Money doesn't bring happiness. There's love and fun and adventure and a million other thing, but you get the picture.



Example of progress? Im online talking to you,I can talk to a person around the world in seconds now. True--people do that all of the time now--but never talk to their neighbor. There's technical progress--but that hardly makes life "better."


Human progress? Human emotions,rational thought,and appreciation for art and music in evolutionary sense. That's pretty elitest of you. Do you thing your appreciation of music is better than some Native American 1000 years ago singing his songs around a fire somewhere. If anything we've LOST the ability to be so at one with oneself.


The Natives are in a bad situation due to racism against natives that exists within Latin America. Africa is just fucked because of capitalism and a long history of imperialism,colonialism,and apathied. But all of that is changing slowly, just like I said with witchs and monarchs,the tide of progress is bound to come. But you see all that came about through "progress." Not all progress is good--the primitivists (which I'm not one of) might say none of it is good.


Because the first world uses the 3rd world as a cheap labor force. I know all of that, but why were "we" able to conquer them and not them couquer us?

[Qayin]

Sure. Money doesn't bring happiness. There's love and fun and adventure and a million other thing, but you get the picture.
Brought by human condition.


True--people do that all of the time now--but never talk to their neighbor. There's technical progress--but that hardly makes life "better."
Then you define what progress is.


That's pretty elitest of you. Do you thing your appreciation of music is better than some Native American 1000 years ago singing his songs around a fire somewhere. If anything we've LOST the ability to be so at one with oneself.
Wow way to misread what I wrote.
In the human sense that the current humanoid does,the Natives are still homo sapiens.


But you see all that came about through "progress." Not all progress is good--the primitivists (which I'm not one of) might say none of it is good.

None of us here are primitivists, maybe a few in OI are. Its a stupid reactionary beliefs that would lead to millions dying.


I know all of that, but why were "we" able to conquer them and not them couquer us?
Do I really have to explain this?

[Bud Struggle]

Do I really have to explain this?

Nope. Love you Comrade. We may differ over the details but out sruggle is the same!

[Richard Nixon]

What have I said that makes you think I know nothing about the Pequot War? It is borderline insulting that you would continue to assert this after I've acknowledged what will now be 3 times that indians would sometimes ally with settlers and later the government. This is nothing new in the history of oppressed races, and it doesn't somehow magically change...and I'm almost exhausted typing this...the attitude and policy regarding indians in general. While not the case in the Pequot War, many times the tribes helping the U.S. were ones that were already subjugated.

While it was a good thing in a sense, indians still had little say in their affairs and the discriminatory laws against them were still upheld much in the same way that blacks were held back. Only in the 1970s did we even begin to obtain the tools necessary for self-determination (largely in part, I would say, to the work of AIM and the civil rights movement).

However, we're not talking about things that have little bearing on current events. Come visit sometime...we're still learning how to shake off the effects of what was done, some tribes with tremendous success (and ironically, some are also experience the emergence of deeping class divisions within the tribe) and some with the horrible and tragic conditions of places like Pine Ridge. All I ask from you is the same consideration the victims of the holocaust have been extended in that you stop apologizing or coming up with justifications for what was done and start looking toward ways to ensure things like this do not happen again, to anyone, ever.

I agree with what you've said that the treatment of Amerindians were brutal and unjustified as I've stated before and amends must be made. However comparing it with the Holocaust is not true as unlike the Holocaust where the policy of the German government was to hunt down and kill every Jew it was never the policy of the American government to hunt down and kill every Amerindian. Of course many times they did not care whether the Indians died or not. The plight of the Indians is however comparble to Stalin's induced famines or the Great Leap Backward of Mao. I think this is more a debate over semantics then anything else. As an aside what do you think of the current policy of the US government to give casino rights to Amerindians tribes?

[Comrade B]

it was never the policy of the American government to hunt down and kill every Amerindian.
check out the history of California. People were sent to hunt natives down.

[Plagueround]

As an aside what do you think of the current policy of the US government to give casino rights to Amerindians tribes?

Since the tribes have finally manged to win some semblance of sovereignty, the decision to incorporate gaming into their economy was not some sort of gift granted to them. They set it up within their sovereign rights and were battled, and to some extent still are battled over it. The casinos have brought in much needed revenue to tribes struggling to develop an economy, but they bring along much of the problems that casinos bring. They are not an end all be all solution. On my tribes reservation, the casino revenues have been used for many, many social projects, some with tremendous success. Obviously, being a socialist, I don't think that indians adopting their own brand of capitalism is a stopping point, but it has helped them in their ongoing struggle for self-determination and is preferable to the concentration camp like setting reservations once had.

[Richard Nixon]

Since the tribes have finally manged to win some semblance of sovereignty, the decision to incorporate gaming into their economy was not some sort of gift granted to them. They set it up within their sovereign rights and were battled, and to some extent still are battled over it. The casinos have brought in much needed revenue to tribes struggling to develop an economy, but they bring along much of the problems that casinos bring. They are not an end all be all solution. On my tribes reservation, the casino revenues have been used for many, many social projects, some with tremendous success. Obviously, being a socialist, I don't think that indians adopting their own brand of capitalism is a stopping point, but it has helped them in their ongoing struggle for self-determination and is preferable to the concentration camp like setting reservations once had.

I more or less agree with you except for "the capitalism isn't the best" part.

[danyboy27]

I more or less agree with you except for "the capitalism isn't the best" part.
Capitalism isnt the best man, even you should kow that.
seriously, think about it, the whole freaking system exist beccause we put artificially high values to things surrounding us, a Ipod dosnt cost more than 10 dollars to manufacture and they are selling me this piece of crap for 140 dollars!

this whole system create constant loop of instability that continually impair our evolution.

right now, the stability of the middle east is threatenned beccause some dude created an artificial scarcity on corn! this is creazy man, some dude are destabilising entieres countries to make a quick buck? how can we expect to advance with shit like that impairing our progress!

[Richard Nixon]

Capitalism isnt the best man, even you should kow that.
seriously, think about it, the whole freaking system exist beccause we put artificially high values to things surrounding us, a Ipod dosnt cost more than 10 dollars to manufacture and they are selling me this piece of crap for 140 dollars!

this whole system create constant loop of instability that continually impair our evolution.

right now, the stability of the middle east is threatenned beccause some dude created an artificial scarcity on corn! this is creazy man, some dude are destabilising entieres countries to make a quick buck? how can we expect to advance with shit like that impairing our progress!

I would agree capitalism is very imperfect and a lot of prices are absurd. And I think such predatory capitalism as you mentioned should not be tolerated, I'm not a laissez-faire capitalist.

[danyboy27]

I would agree capitalism is very imperfect and a lot of prices are absurd. And I think such predatory capitalism as you mentioned should not be tolerated, I'm not a laissez-faire capitalist.

you dont seem to realise that capitalism is a force, has long you have capitalism in place, you got the pressures of big buisness who will do whatever necessary to make a quick buck, even if it mean delay a crucial technology of 10 year to be avaliable.

of course social democracy tend to diminish such exploits but it dosnt change the fact that the whole pressure of the capital is still messing up with our technological evolution.

99% of the medecine produced are inexpensive to manufacture, but you still have people paying thousand of dollars a year for their AIDS treatements, a disease that is a constant threat for everyone.

[Richard Nixon]

you dont seem to realise that capitalism is a force, has long you have capitalism in place, you got the pressures of big buisness who will do whatever necessary to make a quick buck, even if it mean delay a crucial technology of 10 year to be avaliable.

However selling a more advanced say computer will help sell more computers so usually (though not always) capitalists will favour high-tech stuff.


of course social democracy tend to diminish such exploits but it dosnt change the fact that the whole pressure of the capital is still messing up with our technological evolution.

99% of the medecine produced are inexpensive to manufacture, but you still have people paying thousand of dollars a year for their AIDS treatements, a disease that is a constant threat for everyone.

Of course oftentimes capitalism drives prices down in competition such as when a battle between two railways in the US in the 1880s made the ticket from Kansas City to Los Angeles one dollar. This is why prices are lower in the US then in say France.

[danyboy27]

However selling a more advanced say computer will help sell more computers so usually (though not always) capitalists will favour high-tech stuff.

dosnt work that way. see, you make more money by selling a shitty computer first, then, when the hype is gone, you start selling something slightly better, the process could go on for decades. Now and then you have to show something some stunning that will be acclamed has a scientifical breaktrought in order to keep the competition down.

that how it work. capitalist in buisness will NOT favour high tech stuff, often buisness cut in the infrastructure in order to save money. i work in a computer shop and most of our workstation are crappy computers.

in the buisness i worked, every time we asked for some new technologies to improve the quality of our work we have been turned down beccause of the cost.



Of course oftentimes capitalism drives prices down in competition such as when a battle between two railways in the US in the 1880s made the ticket from Kansas City to Los Angeles one dollar. This is why prices are lower in the US then in say France.

its nowhere near enough to compensate for the harm it does to the human race. AIDS could have been cured year ago if the people who are working on it would actually work together and not trying to find the cure by themselves to make billion out of it.

[Richard Nixon]

dosnt work that way. see, you make more money by selling a shitty computer first, then, when the hype is gone, you start selling something slightly better, the process could go on for decades. Now and then you have to show something some stunning that will be acclamed has a scientifical breaktrought in order to keep the competition down.


Where have you been in the last twenty years? It's like every year there is a new Ipod variant: the Iphone, the Iphone touch, etc.... Indeed socialist economies will prefer safe and steady technologies rather then cutting-edge technologies for instance in say manufacturing as it keeps more workers on the job and does not displace workers.


that how it work. capitalist in buisness will NOT favour high tech stuff, often buisness cut in the infrastructure in order to save money. i work in a computer shop and most of our workstation are crappy computers.

in the buisness i worked, every time we asked for some new technologies to improve the quality of our work we have been turned down beccause of the cost.



Sometimes but these businesses usually tend to go out of business or lose competitions.


its nowhere near enough to compensate for the harm it does to the human race. AIDS could have been cured year ago if the people who are working on it would actually work together and not trying to find the cure by themselves to make billion out of it.

The problem is that if you don't give any financial reward for say pharmaceutical researchers they will not bother to work as hard as they don't have the motivation. Is it incredbily disgusting and selfish? Yes but that's part of life.

[danyboy27]

Where have you been in the last twenty years? It's like every year there is a new Ipod variant: the Iphone, the Iphone touch, etc.... Indeed socialist economies will prefer safe and steady technologies rather then cutting-edge technologies for instance in say manufacturing as it keeps more workers on the job and does not displace workers.
.

you dont seem to realise that they could have made those things LONG time ago, a lot of the high tech of today is based on stuff that have been operational and functionnal for YEARS! iphone? a cellphone and a ipod combined, nothing new at all! touchscreen system? developed in the early 90s! Ipod with a camrecorder in it? old tech.

those things arnt high tech, this is old tech distributed at a convinient pace for the investors.




Sometimes but these businesses usually tend to go out of business or lose competitions.

the buisness i work with have been active for more than 27 FUCKING YEAR MATE. the other places i have been? OVER 16 YEAR! give me a break, those buisness are succesfull beccause they save their money on the whole structure, the investor dosnt really care about the worker confort, hell, it would take some kind of rocket scientist to make those guy understand that more confort for us mean more money for them, but it seem to be too complicated for them. they hired a specialist where i work to deal with the worker beccause the whole administration suck at it so bad.





The problem is that if you don't give any financial reward for say pharmaceutical researchers they will not bother to work as hard as they don't have the motivation. Is it incredbily disgusting and selfish? Yes but that's part of life.
what about the fame and glory those scientist will have for curing one of the deadliest disease of the 21th century?

i think has a society we can aknowledge that some people do a lot for us and that those people should be rewarded for this.

i fail to see why we would condemn our scientist and doctor to live in a small 2 rooms appartements while they are saving the lives of thousand of people a year. i am against creating an elite but i fail to see how a reward for an outstanding work is elitism, has long everyone have what they need to live.

[Richard Nixon]

you dont seem to realise that they could have made those things LONG time ago, a lot of the high tech of today is based on stuff that have been operational and functionnal for YEARS! iphone? a cellphone and a ipod combined, nothing new at all! touchscreen system? developed in the early 90s! Ipod with a camrecorder in it? old tech.

those things arnt high tech, this is old tech distributed at a convinient pace for the investors.

And those things would have cost far more in the 90s so it wouldn't have sold very much. Also a leftist society would have to worry about costs also.


the buisness i work with have been active for more than 27 FUCKING YEAR MATE. the other places i have been? OVER 16 YEAR! give me a break, those buisness are succesfull beccause they save their money on the whole structure, the investor dosnt really care about the worker confort, hell, it would take some kind of rocket scientist to make those guy understand that more confort for us mean more money for them, but it seem to be too complicated for them. they hired a specialist where i work to deal with the worker beccause the whole administration suck at it so bad.


Then why has been the old guard corporations like the Big Three Auto companies going out of business they refused to innovate, so they are on life support from government. On the other for instance Microsoft has been thriving.




what about the fame and glory those scientist will have for curing one of the deadliest disease of the 21th century?

i think has a society we can aknowledge that some people do a lot for us and that those people should be rewarded for this.

i fail to see why we would condemn our scientist and doctor to live in a small 2 rooms appartements while they are saving the lives of thousand of people a year. i am against creating an elite but i fail to see how a reward for an outstanding work is elitism, has long everyone have what they need to live.

I agree which is why such scientists are given important awards like the Nobel Prizes.

[danyboy27]

And those things would have cost far more in the 90s so it wouldn't have sold very much. Also a leftist society would have to worry about costs also.
.
the only real reason why those things are cheaper is beccause china have developped, it have absolutly nothing to do with the mythical scarcity of a ressources this system is maintaining. all the coponent who are used to make Ipod are avaliable in ENORMOUS quantities. a communist or socialist society price dosnt matter, but the scarcity of a ressource do.

for instance all the coponents necessary to the construction of a Ipod where and still verry aboundant.



Then why has been the old guard corporations like the Big Three Auto companies going out of business they refused to innovate, so they are on life support from government. On the other for instance Microsoft has been thriving.
.

those old guard has you call them where and still the most brilliant exemple of efficient logistics, and are providing an excelent product, giving decent living standard to its employee for that.

now, take note that their verry problems have nothing to do with their product but again with all that mytical scarcity and artificial pricing thing.

in a wolrd without economical restraint those guy would just do car beccause people need them, but now, beccause x or y buisness have been able to cut the manufacturing cost by paying its employee less or finding material at a better price, they are killing another buisness, it dosnt make sense, its completly irrational and illogical to gamble the lives of people working this way man.

[Richard Nixon]

the only real reason why those things are cheaper is beccause china have developped, it have absolutly nothing to do with the mythical scarcity of a ressources this system is maintaining. all the coponent who are used to make Ipod are avaliable in ENORMOUS quantities. a communist or socialist society price dosnt matter, but the scarcity of a ressource do.

for instance all the coponents necessary to the construction of a Ipod where and still verry aboundant.


Do you support the existence of a currency? Because for instance if you are going to make all those things how are you going to pay the workforce and the people who make the materials. It works now because China has been opened and it has industrialized.


those old guard has you call them where and still the most brilliant exemple of efficient logistics, and are providing an excelent product, giving decent living standard to its employee for that.

now, take note that their verry problems have nothing to do with their product but again with all that mytical scarcity and artificial pricing thing.

in a wolrd without economical restraint those guy would just do car beccause people need them, but now, beccause x or y buisness have been able to cut the manufacturing cost by paying its employee less or finding material at a better price, they are killing another buisness, it dosnt make sense, its completly irrational and illogical to gamble the lives of people working this way man.

This is one part I agree on, that is against predatory business practices. However the Big Three Auto companies did not modernize and build cars that Americans wanted (although ironically the rest of the world likes GM's produtcts).