Anti-Trump Mega Thread!

[Ayayay]

I agree, hate those ads. Plus, where the heck does she get that money from? She's like super tiny nation score. Does she sereiously spend that much rl money to make ads?

Raids new nations for easy dosh. Doubtful he spends any real money.

[Obongo the Paultifex]

You just justified Hitler.

It's funny you say that when just a few posts later I described the difference between occupation and conquering. Don't be dumb.

 

Actually, I take it back. I'm not leaving it at that. I'll show you why you're wrong.

 

Hitler's Reich started expanding in 1938 and stopped expanding by 1943, ultimately ending in total defeat in 1945. Within those 8 years, much of Europe was occupied by the Germans. However, while the countries themselves had been overrun, the Allies managed to liberate the occupied nations with their combined military and re-establish the, until then, exiled governments while overthrowing the government put in place by Germany. Sure, if Hitler had managed to beat back the Americans, English, and the Soviets and hold onto the entirety of Europe for the next hundred years, it would effectively be German land. And there really would be no need to justify that because the strength of the Germany military alone would be all the justification anyone would need. Might still made right in that situation because Hitler made too many enemies and couldn't solidify his claims in Europe. Same goes for any failed expansionist leader.

Edited September 17, 2015 by Obongo the Paultifex

[Ayayay]

They're annoying as !@#$ and poor quality, if I wanted the same quality of work on ad I would ask my mentally retarded brother to draw me a picture.

Are you sure it's your brother who's retarded?

[seabasstion]

shame on this thread. shame.

[Caecus]

Much like how the Europeans handled Africa, those treaties likely were either meant to pacify the natives into submission to avoid having to kill them all, or were just an outright lie so they could buy time to get more Americans moving out West to displace their already low populations. While the whole situation, both here and around the world in that era, was shitty, hypocritical, and morally abhorrent by modern standards, diplomacy has always been a luxury for nations that have a competent military and means of defending themselves. The natives were neither a nation nor a competent fighting force. Whether from sheer lack of modern military training or lack of numbers and equipment, they couldn't defend any land that they claimed to own and that allowed the United States to treat the land as if it was owned by other nations (Read: The Louisiana Purchase), or overruled whatever meaningless treaty they made with the natives to accomplish their true goals (Like the Removal Act).

 

We are natives, and we can argue against illegal immigration. We were the first civilized nation to form on this continent's soil, and our ownership of the entirety of the modern United States is backed by our military and mutual agreements with other civilized nations.

 

I OBJECT!

 

Your view of ownership of land and citizenship is outdated and biased. You have a very narrow view of history where you see conquest and military might as a justification (moral or otherwise) of forced relocation, subjugation of human rights, and systematic mass murder. While it is true that military might does allow for the seizure of land and the massacre of its residences, it does not make it justified.

 

There are many instances in history where coexistence was in place of concentration camps and genocide. The most famous examples are, ironically, iconic empires. The early Roman Republic established a confederation of allies, a system of alliances instead of massacring the populace. As Rome expanded, they extended citizenship to most of Italy, which mind you, significantly differed in ethnicity, social customs, religion, and government. As Rome expanded its empire (I admit, some through military conquest), instead of slaughtering/forced relocating the inhabitants and replacing them with a Roman colony, they left them to govern themselves, and simply pay taxes. These taxes went to improving roads, urban development, and trade, not in Rome, but in the very province the taxes came from.

 

Rome's greatest achievement is not it's military victories, but Rome's passive cultural unification. Over a thousand years have passed since the Roman empire collapsed, and the greatest legacy is its cultural unification. Spanish, French, Portuguese, and Italian is nothing less than living Latin. Highways in France and Spain are right next to the old Roman roads built during the empire. When Rome was sacked, those who did the sacking BELIEVED they were citizens of the Roman empire overthrowing a corrupt and broken government.

 

The disaster of western expansion in the United States resulted in a catastrophic loss of life, a diversity of culture and religion, and the CONTINUED subjugation of the inhabitants. The United States had the capacity to absorb the native peoples. The average population per square mile today in the United States is 84. To put it in perspective, Spain is 210, France is 289, and Germany is 609. There is plenty of land for the couple million Native Americans. The only reason why the 19th century was such a disaster is simply out of blatant racism and greed. Americans did not believe that the Native Americans were worth absorbing into their own society. 

[Obongo the Paultifex]

 

[argument]

I should probably clarify my views on land ownership. I don't advocate for land ownership by conquest, but what I do argue is that the nations that are successful in doing so don't need to justify their holdings because their successful military is all the justification they need. If a nation overtakes another with a military and forcefully relocated the original inhabitants, they likely don't care about any sort of diplomatic or moral complications from doing so. At that point, the only way to overturn what they've done is to overpower their military and through that remove their only claim to the land they took.

 

We did try to unify cultures, although it was through the scope of religion and that didn't turn out well. Also lets not forget that cultures don't always mesh well, and if one is spreading it's likely at the expense of the other. Nobody has cared about cultural diversity until historically recently. One important thing to remember about the barbarians that were accepted into the Roman fold is that they were Romanticized. They gave up their barbarian heritage to become Roman, much like a successfully converted native would lose their native heritage to become American. At least at that time. Spreading culture is just the second step to controlling people after you've taken their land from the previous owners by force.

 

The Romans' treatment of the tribal states that existed around their empire was different from how the natives in America were treated by the colonial Europeans. When I said earlier that their genocide was inevitable, I meant it because even if we never brought up arms against them, disease would do the slaughtering for us. Our very existence in the new world facilitated the depopulation of native lands because we brought our diseases with us. Funny enough, it was that same reason why the Europeans didn't colonize sub-Saharan Africa until the late 1800's. We had no resistance to Malaria, so the colonizers died.

Edited September 17, 2015 by Obongo the Paultifex

[Caecus]

I don't advocate for land ownership by conquest, but what I do argue is that the nations that are successful in doing so don't need to justify their holdings because their successful military is all the justification they need. 

 

Which is what I meant by "outdated."

 

We did try to unify cultures, although it was through the scope of religion and that didn't turn out well. Also lets not forget that cultures don't always mesh well, and if one is spreading it's likely at the expense of the other. 

 

We did the exact same things the Roman Confederation did before 1830. Native Americans fought in the revolution and war of 1812. Jackson must have forgot the Native Americans who rallied to repel the British off of New Orleans. It was only after did we decide on a century-long policy of state-sponsored genocide and aggressive expansion. 

 

 

One important thing to remember about the barbarians that were accepted into the Roman fold is that they were Romanticized. They gave up their barbarian heritage to become Roman, much like a successfully converted native would lose their native heritage to become American.

 

Incorrect. This is a common misconception of the Roman Empire. The Roman practice of local government was Mos Regionis, which is Latin for (roughly), "the customs of their region." That held true from Gaul to Palestine. Jews and (especially) Christians never participated in the imperial cult. Not everyone wore the traditional toga. The Romans never forced their culture on anyone, rather, the barbarians became "Romanticized" due simply to their daily interaction and chose to accept Roman culture. Those native cultures persisted well after the collapse of the Roman empire. 

 

 

The Romans' treatment of the tribal states that existed around their empire was different from how the natives in America were treated by the colonial Europeans. When I said earlier that their genocide was inevitable, I meant it because even if we never brought up arms against them, disease would do the slaughtering for us. Our very existence in the new world facilitated the depopulation of native lands because we brought our diseases with us. Funny enough, it was that same reason why the Europeans didn't colonize sub-Saharan Africa until the late 1800's. We had no resistance to Malaria, so the colonizers died.

 

The greatest "killer" disease the Europeans brought with them was the Vera Variola, more commonly known as the small pox disease. You are most certainly correct in saying that small pox was an tremendous killer. Small pox killed roughly 1 in 6, and left survivors physically scarred for life. But the very definition of "genocide" by the international standard is "state-sponsored discrimination and mass murder." By no means did colonial Europeans deliberately intended to bring the disease to wipe out the native population. While it is true there are cases of deliberate spreading of small pox via infected blankets, that is well after colonization. By saying that "we already brought a killer disease here, it's inevitable, it doesn't really matter if we kill off the rest" is the same logic as (trying to link back to the original topic here) "oh, the Mexicans are already here, illegal immigration is inevitable, !@#$ immigration policy, let's give everyone citizenship and open the borders."

Edited September 17, 2015 by Caecus

[Obongo the Paultifex]

We did the exact same things the Roman Confederation did before 1830. Native Americans fought in the revolution and war of 1812. Jackson must have forgot the Native Americans who rallied to repel the British off of New Orleans. It was only after did we decide on a century-long policy of state-sponsored genocide and aggressive expansion. 

 

The greatest "killer" disease the Europeans brought with them was the Vera Variola, more commonly known as the small pox disease. You are most certainly correct in saying that small pox was an tremendous killer. Small pox killed roughly 1 in 6, and left survivors physically scarred for life. But the very definition of "genocide" by the international standard is "state-sponsored discrimination and mass murder." By no means did colonial Europeans deliberately intended to bring the disease to wipe out the native population. While it is true there are cases of deliberate spreading of small pox via infected blankets, that is well after colonization. By saying that "we already brought a killer disease here, it's inevitable, it doesn't really matter if we kill off the rest" is the same logic as (trying to link back to the original topic here) "oh, the Mexicans are already here, illegal immigration is inevitable, !@#$ immigration policy, let's give everyone citizenship and open the borders."

We didn't do exactly what the Romans did with the barbarians surrounded them. Even though George Washington himself thought of the natives as equals, we still ended up forcing some natives to assimilate. That, on top of treaties made to get the natives out of land we wanted, and culminating in the Removal Act, is the broad picture of American - Native relations. Sure, the natives sided with America during the wars they faced during the first hundred years of its status of an independent nation, but much like the Indians during World War II, their willingness to assist the civilization that ruled over them was out of the naive hope that this would somehow cause the rulers of these civilizations to repay them for their efforts by giving them independence. That obviously turned out not to be the case.

 

It's probably a leap in logic to say that just because the Americans benefited from the depopulation of native territories due to disease, the deaths of natives due to small pox was deliberate (although we've had a vaccine for it since 1798 and we didn't start programs for vaccinating native Americans until almost a hundred years later), and therefore I guess I can't keep using the term "genocide was inevitable". What I will say in place of that is we had ruined the native population of North America the moment we made contact with them. The deaths of millions due to treatable diseases (especially in the case of the West Coast natives, since we had a small pox vaccine for decades by the time we reached there) overshadows even the most oppressive and brutal movements against natives. The infamous Trail of Tears consisted of "only" 100,000 natives being forced out of their homeland, compared to the (up to) 18 million native deaths from disease since the Spanish arrived. The depopulation made the forced removal and relocation of surviving natives much easier, and our forefathers capitalized on it. Was it right? No, but we can't rewind two hundred years of history and progress that was built upon those acts. What little we did do in return is probably as good as it's gonna get, considering that a majority of the land in the US is privately owned. That and since there's only a couple million natives around, they don't need huge swaths of land anyway, but that's ignoring the fact that a large majority of them don't live on reservations, but within cities.

 

The logic there isn't "Most of the natives already died, might as well kill the rest". It's more of "Well, most of the natives have already died from disease. Might as well use this to our advantage." Which could relate to "Well, there's already a bunch of illegal immigrants here, might as well use that to our advantage to show how we need to close the border now and offer amnesty to the ones already here".

Edited September 17, 2015 by Obongo the Paultifex

[Moon Man]

for all of those who keep saying that America should give back the land to the native Americans, why don't you guys yell at Israel. They basically did the same thing to Palestine, but they did it recently and had to enlist the help of the US (and still do to some extent) to keep hold of the land. The holocaust, committed by Germans, should not punish Palestine for something that they had no part in. If anything, a jewish state should have been erected in Berlin

[Nadir Aminu]

Wow, that's a lot of long sentences.

[Obongo the Paultifex]

Wow, that's a lot of long sentences.

ikr

 

We've had more meaningful discussion here than all 15 of the republican hopefuls had last night.

[Nadir Aminu]

ikr

 

We've had more meaningful discussion here than all 15 of the republican hopefuls had last night.

Lol

[Ekejen Luish]

Agreed.

[Caecus]

We didn't do exactly what the Romans did with the barbarians surrounded them. Even though George Washington himself thought of the natives as equals, we still ended up forcing some natives to assimilate. That, on top of treaties made to get the natives out of land we wanted, and culminating in the Removal Act, is the broad picture of American - Native relations. Sure, the natives sided with America during the wars they faced during the first hundred years of its status of an independent nation, but much like the Indians during World War II, their willingness to assist the civilization that ruled over them was out of the naive hope that this would somehow cause the rulers of these civilizations to repay them for their efforts by giving them independence. That obviously turned out not to be the case.

 

Yes, I totally agree. I'm not saying that there is any lack of forced assimilation or racial discrimination, I'm just saying that it did not occur as a social policy of the US government until the Jacksonian Era. And for the record, the colonial east was swampy, miserable, flee infested area with little arable land (without swamp drainage). And just a hop, skip away on the other side of the Appalachian (hills, because I'm from the Rockies area) is Kentucky Blue Grass, with the sun shining in a place that would be equated (by colonists of a rocky, swampy, miserable hell hole) to heaven. Was there incentive to go West? YES. Was there incentive to displace native Americans? YES. Did that result in native Americans and colonists committing acts of massacre? YES. But was this all systematic, planned specifically by the government and carried out as a foreign policy of aggressive expansion? I would argue no, not until Jackson. 

 

 

Was it right? No, but we can't rewind two hundred years of history and progress that was built upon those acts. What little we did do in return is probably as good as it's gonna get, considering that a majority of the land in the US is privately owned. 

 

The logic there isn't "Most of the natives already died, might as well kill the rest". It's more of "Well, most of the natives have already died from disease. Might as well use this to our advantage." Which could relate to "Well, there's already a bunch of illegal immigrants here, might as well use that to our advantage to show how we need to close the border now and offer amnesty to the ones already here".

 

Don't get me wrong, purely from the perspective of the United States after the Civil War, westward expansion was a rational foreign policy. The lack of another major power in the area ultimately led to the United States becoming the chief regional superpower, and through the rest of the 19th and 20th century, maintained a policy of preventing European/major power interference in the local hemisphere. I'm saying that military conquest ultimately lacked moral and social justifications, other than racism and the inflated military still left from the Civil War. This American obsession with owning everything between Oregon and Mississippi is ridiculous. There was the railroad incentive, to be sure, but railroad companies preferred US military intervention instead of moving their railroad line farther from their intended location (no doubt to profit). This xenophobia, or frankly, a lacking of caring for the existence of other cultures and ethnicity, contradict the founding principles of the nation. 

 

Also, I'm not an American historian, but I am pretty sure by the 19th century, even Native Americans had developed at least some immunity to small pox. After all, the Ute nation became a semi-nomadic people due to the European introduction to the horse (the horse was not native to America). 

[Caecus]

for all of those who keep saying that America should give back the land to the native Americans, why don't you guys yell at Israel. They basically did the same thing to Palestine, but they did it recently and had to enlist the help of the US (and still do to some extent) to keep hold of the land. The holocaust, committed by Germans, should not punish Palestine for something that they had no part in. If anything, a jewish state should have been erected in Berlin

 

In my own personal reflection, I believe Rome was the ideal state. It's existence for almost 1000 years (not including the Byzantine Empire) is remarkable by any historical standards. If I were to attribute some element of Roman society to its success, I would say it is because of its own artificial creation. Rome was deliberately formed with three tribes equal in size. That meant that exactly a third were Sammite, a third were Latin, and a third were Etruscan. The term "Tribe" comes from the word "Tribus", meaning a third in Latin. That meant that citizenship did not depend on ethnicity or religion, but rather was a fluid concept. When Rome expanded, that citizenship was handed out like hotcakes, most commonly in the form of reward after military service.

 

Rome did not found itself on a religious basis, meaning that it was accepting of other cultures and religions. A great story is the emperor Trajan once offered the Christians to put Christ in the pantheon, not knowing how batshit crazy Christians were. Thus, you saw an amazing diversity of Zoroastrianism, Christianity, Judaism, a number of creepy cults, all residing in an empire.  

 

Israel will not last nearly as long as the Roman Empire. Israel managed to alienate a group of people 10 times their own population, and propped the state up through only military force. That military force is only backed by a strong, stable United States. Should the United States one day decide "Oh, hey, the Middle East is a drain of our resources (which it is). See ya." Israel might just collapse on itself. 

 

While today, many people see diversity as an important for social reasons, I see diversity and coexistence as a means of a state's own stability and life. Criticizing Israel right now is like telling a drug addict to stop injecting cocaine. It's pointless unless you do an overhaul and send that guy to rehab. 

[Ekejen Luish]

I should rename this thread "Debate about Native Americans and the Westward Expansion".

[Kyubnyan]

If you all think the colonists are horrible for taking over the native land in America then I highly recommend you read this book (http://www.amazon.com/A-Peoples-History-United-States/dp/0060838655) by Howard Zinn. It is about how horrible the American people are starting from the very settlement of this country, and seeing as you all seem to hate everything about this countries roots I think it will be a great read. However, you should also try to see this issue from the other side in another book (http://www.amazon.com/Patriots-History-United-States-Columbuss/dp/1595230327) that was written specifically to give a counterargument to every point that Howard Zinn makes in his book. This link (http://spectator.org/articles/39155/case-against-howard-zinn) is to an article that gives you some insight into where he stood on the political spectrum which you should read before either of the books. I give these links so that you can come to your own conclusions because arguing gets you nowhere with most people on the internet. 

[Doktor Avalanche]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Americans_in_the_United_States

Surprisingly an interesting read.

I always get amused when I see how tiny my Nation is(Ottawa) compared to tribes like the Cherokee.

[Dwemyrn]

Are you sure it's your brother who's retarded?

Yes, I'm aware most perceive me as moronic but that perception I purposefully want people to believe about me and it clearly works.

[Ekejen Luish]

I don't hate the roots of this country, I hate the discrimination of Native Americans.

[Dwemyrn]

I don't hate the roots of this country, I hate the discrimination of Native Americans.

The original topic was Anti-Trump...get back on topic or mods should lock the thread. >_>

[Obongo the Paultifex]

The original topic was Anti-Trump...get back on topic or mods should lock the thread. >_>

Well they shitposted about "hurr muh colonists are illegal immigrants" and ruined the thread from being a circle jerk into a discussion

Edited September 18, 2015 by Obongo the Paultifex

[Dwemyrn]

Well they shitposted about "hurr muh colonists are illegal immigrants" and ruined the thread from being a circle jerk into a discussion

Honestly there was never really a discussion here. Just biching. If we rename to this thread to the bichy discussion then we won't have to worry about going off topic. lol

[Doktor Avalanche]

Well they shitposted about "hurr muh colonists are illegal immigrants" and ruined the thread from being a circle jerk into a discussion

Some people feel that the argument regarding immigration is nonsensical simply due to the fact that everyone whose ancestry stems from Europe is an immigrant here in the US. That was my main point and it got your attention at least. Trump, wanting to build walls, looks like a huge ass simply because 40% of illegal immigrants do not even enter through the borders by flashlight and a set of wire cutters- but by an expired visa. It's the same argument demanding people to "speak English or get the Hell out!" because we are a nation of immigrants and no law demands the language requirement. Yet Trump complains about it. He is talking lolitics just to gain votes. In the end if he wins nothing will change. No wall. No language requirement. Crappy economy will still remain crappy.

[Wayne]

They want you to argue about the pointless shit so you don't look at the major problems of the western world.

Edited September 18, 2015 by Wayne