Gay Marriage

[JeepNGeorge]

Originally posted by ladysycamore


No NOT absurd to some. That's up to you if you don't want to persue that option. If you do, then you do. If not, then oh well. *shrugs*

So it's okay for the government to bestow certain perks to a group of people. Just don't let that group of people be a majority.

[quzah]

Originally posted by ladysycamore
Correct. It's nobody's business what they do to each other.

What? Ok, let's get this straight: "NA" like to be recognized as each their own "nation". The Charokee Nation, the Apache Nation, etc. So it's OK for all of these "somewhat related nations" to kill eachother, but when an outside "nation" comes in, it's wrong? Am I the only one who things this is absolutely absurd?

So in your words, only white people can fight with white people. Only black people can fight with black people. Only green people can fight with green people? Wow. You're one racist bastard.

Originally posted by ladysycamore
Say what? Who cares about HOW they killed off the Natives. The fact that they did and WHY they fought them and tried to kill them off was wrong.

The Trail Of Tears ring a bell?

Claims not disputed. I never said whitey was friendly. I said before whitey, the NA were slaughtering eachother. But that was OK, because it was just infighting. Shit.

Originally posted by ladysycamore
It wasn't all about just "fighting". History tells us that Europeans had a habit of "fighting" the Native cultures of many lands that they invaded. Try "attempting to eliminate" by intimidation, slavery, internment camps, and the outright murder of native people all over the world.

And? I've never disputed this. I am making an issue with the fact that you seem to think it's fine for one land masses native inhabitants to kill eachother, but it's wrong for someone from another land mass to come fight too. This is what is so hard to swallow.

So in your words, it's fine for WWI and WWII Germany to invade all of Europe, because they share the same land mass and skin tone? That's ok? It's ok for WWI Italy to invade also, because they're also of "similar" skin tones, and share the same continent?

Originally posted by ladysycamore
You may feel that my logic is "absurd", but history doesn't lie.

Bwhahahahah. Surely you jest? History doesn't lie? "History" is "truth" as told by the winner. You seldom hear the loser's side of the story. On a related vein, there are always two sides to a story, at least.

The fact of the matter is, if WWI or WWII were won by the "bad guys", then that would be the "right way" as viewed by current history. History would have been told differently if they'd won.

For that matter, there is still dispute on the WWII German U-Boat sinking. The Germans claim that they fired upon a vessel containing ammunitions. The US claims it was a passenger ship, and thus entered the war.

In fact they're both right. But the "right view" as your "truthful history" would tell you, is that it was an innocent passenger ship. It wasn't. It was a ship full of passengers and muntions. That's what America did. They packed civillian ships full of munitions and sent them over to Britian full of civillians.

But hey, what do I know, history doesn't lie, right?

Quzah.

[quzah]

Originally posted by JeepNGeorge
So it's okay for the government to bestow certain perks to a group of people. Just don't let that group of people be a majority.

Rich people and tax-breaks say "Hi".

Quzah.

[ladysycamore]

Originally posted by JeepNGeorge


So it's okay for the government to bestow certain perks to a group of people. Just don't let that group of people be a majority.

Well, why would the "majority" get certain perks, when they are the ones who already HAVE the perks?

If those who are part of the "minority" weren't considered less than the "majority" (in value) in the first place, this wouldn't even be a topic of discussion (meaning no one would be complaining about certain people getting special treatment, etc.).

[quzah]

Originally posted by ladysycamore
No NOT absurd to some. That's up to you if you don't want to persue that option. If you do, then you do. If not, then oh well. *shrugs*

Ok, so how long is "good enough" for whitey to pay NA? 100 more years? Five more years? 500 more years? 1000 more years? You do realize that "whitey" isn't going to be the majority for long. Oh, wait, they're actually not anyway. They're just considered that because of business percentage or something.

Anyway, back to the topic: Soon, (I've seen it quoted, but 50% of statistics are just made up anyway,) "whitey" will not be a majority. The prediction is that soon there won't be any "white" people. Give it a few more decades. Say 100 years. What then? There are no more "whities", and then should the government still pay the NA? Why?

As long as there is traceable DNA to detect some "whitey" ancestory, should someone be paying the NA? When is the deadline?

But naturally you won't see the point. That's fine.

Quzah.

[ladysycamore]

What? Ok, let's get this straight: "NA" like to be recognized as each their own "nation". The Cherokee Nation, the Apache Nation, etc. So it's OK for all of these "somewhat related nations" to kill eachother, but when an outside "nation" comes in, it's wrong? Am I the only one who things this is absolutely absurd?

So in your words, only white people can fight with white people. Only black people can fight with black people. Only green people can fight with green people?

That's not what I was saying. That's only how you are reading it.

I am making an issue...

Yes...you are.

...with the fact that you seem to think it's fine for one land masses native inhabitants to kill eachother, but it's wrong for someone from another land mass to come fight too. This is what is so hard to swallow.

I supposed I'm trying to understand why it's ok for a culture of people to come in and destroy another's way of living JUST BECAUSE of infighting. You haven't given any other reason as to why "whitey" had the right to come into NA territory and destroy lives besides, "Well, they fought among each other...why not?!?"

[ladysycamore]

Originally posted by quzah

Ok, so how long is "good enough" for whitey to pay NA? 100 more years? Five more years? 500 more years? 1000 more years?

How should *I* know? That will be up to the payers, won't it?

You do realize that "whitey" isn't going to be the majority for long.

Ah, finally the US will catch up with the rest of the world.

As long as there is traceable DNA to detect some "whitey" ancestory, should someone be paying the NA? When is the deadline?

Again, this needs to be asked of those paying out reparations.

But naturally you won't see the point. That's fine.
Quzah.

Care to explain that one? This should be good...

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally posted by juju
Why should I believe this reason when you don't believe it when it's offered up by gays?

Sorry, I still think heterosexuality is a choice.

Your putting words in my mouth, Juju, shame on you. I never said I didn't believe them. All I said is I don't believe *all*(go back and read it) queers are predisposed to it.
I work with a woman that's now 63. At 18 she married a great guy that was a few years older, in a semi-arranged Italian marriage. After they were married for a few weeks and hadn't consumated the marriage, he told her he was gay and they divorced. Twisted her head pretty good. She reasoned that if her husband didn't want her she must be a lesbian. So she became a lesbian, worked at it and now she regrets it and feels it was a mistake because it didn't bring her happiness. Now this woman is obviously an exception (I guess?) and pretty screwed up but it is a true case up being coersed or pushed into her sexual choice by events surrounding her life.
I'm convinced that a child can be "formed" to make a choice that isn't what they would do if they'd been left alone.
For me personally (and it seems a preponderance of people) being hetrosexual was not a choice. If you say it was for you, fine. I believe you.

[quzah]

Originally posted by ladysycamore
I supposed I'm trying to understand why it's ok for a culture of people to come in and destroy another's way of living JUST BECAUSE of infighting. You haven't given any other reason as to why "whitey" had the right to come into NA territory and destroy lives besides, "Well, they fought among each other...why not?!?"

It's quite obvious why, because they were conqueroring land. What's not to understand there? It's the same reason the NA fought with eachother. War and the spoils there of.

Generally when groups of people decide to conquer eachtother, they don't sit down and have weighty philosophical discussions on why they are doing it. I imagine it went something like:

"Hey, they have land. I have guns."
"Hey they have hot chicks. I have a better bow and arrow."
"Hey, that's good hunting there."
"Hey, you stole my pig." (Yeah, this is a real example.)

On that note, I have never made that point that: "Whitey attacked the NA because they figured, 'Hey, they're doing it, why not?'."

My point was: How is it wrong for Whitey to fight with the NA when it is not wrong for the NA to fight amongst themselves? Why is it OK for NA to fight eachother's nations but it is not OK for an outsider to do the same?

That is the issue that you so frequently attempt to sidestep. I've made that point quite clear multiple times.

Originally posted by ladysycamore
Care to explain that one? This should be good...

I just did. See above. It's quite clear. You're missing the point, it's plainly obvious. I just haven't figured out if you're intentionally missing it yet.

Quzah.

[ladysycamore]

:Originally posted by ladysycamore
I supposed I'm trying to understand why it's ok for a culture of people to come in and destroy another's way of living JUST BECAUSE of infighting. You haven't given any other reason as to why "whitey" had the right to come into NA territory and destroy lives besides, "Well, they fought among each other...why not?!?"

It's quite obvious why, because they were conqueroring land. What's not to understand there? It's the same reason the NA fought with eachother. War and the spoils there of.

So I guess you're saying that regardless of reason, people fighting each other is just plain wrong. Ok then.

My point was: How is it wrong for Whitey to fight with the NA when it is not wrong for the NA to fight amongst themselves? Why is it OK for NA to fight eachother's nations but it is not OK for an outsider to do the same?

*shrugs* Because I just didn't see how the two were the same, that's all. Not a huge deal..at least it wasn't supposed to be one.

That is the issue that you so frequently attempt to sidestep. I've made that point quite clear multiple times.

Wow...I don't see the issue the same way as you and now that's called "sidestepping"...interesting. I gave you my reasons why *I* thought the two issues were different. Perhaps now YOU are missing MY point...and you know what? It's.ok. Really...it is.

[xoxoxoBruce]

My 2 cents- I don't see the Indian tribes and the foreign groups as being so different in that time frame. The tribes were different from each other in as many ways as they were the same. The foreign groups were different from each other also. They spoke different languages, different religions, customs, foods, etc.
There was no "Politically Correct" thinking on either side. That's for people who don't have to worry where their next meal is coming from. Back then, all the people involved, red, white, black and brown, believed you could have what you could take and hold. Survival was then name of the game. The losers didn't cry the blues about injustice, they looked for someone weaker to beat up.

Were the losers treated badly? yes.
Were the slaves treated badly? yes.
Is it my fault? NO. I had nothing to do with anything that went on before I was born. Anyone that profited from the mistreatment of either group didn't leave me a cent, so I didn't profit indirectly either. I ain't paying reparations to anyone.

[wolf]

Originally posted by slang
MY internet connection is unbefuckinglievably slow for some unknown reason so I am unable to keep up with posts as normal.

By slow I mean it takes 2 fucking minutes just to access the reply dialog.

The college kids are at home for Thanksgiving. This happens every year. (check the activity light on the router. Someone isn't using your bandwith to download up-yer-skirt-super-webcam again, are they?)

[wolf]

Originally posted by slang
(slang blinks at the monitor......squinting, reads Quzah's last post....then falls out of his chair, bumps his head.....lies babbling, and twitching on the floor)

I actually agree with Quzah

My own experience involved cold sweats and stomach cramps.

but yeah, it's scary.

[lumberjim]

Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce


Were the losers treated badly? yes.
Were the slaves treated badly? yes.
Is it my fault? NO. I had nothing to do with anything that went on before I was born. Anyone that profited from the mistreatment of either group didn't leave me a cent, so I didn't profit indirectly either. I ain't paying reparations to anyone.

yes you did.


You're white. If you were Native, you'd be on a reservation, and wouldn't be doing well enough to have filled your home with all those "doodads" . White males like you and I "start on third base", as jinx frequently reminds me.

BUT:

Dar·win·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (därw-nzm)
n.

A theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. Also called Darwinian theory.
______________________________________

This is where it all comes from. Man in general, just like Gorillas, Lions, Wolves, etc. are subject to natural selection. Look at the empires gone by. Rome. England. Germany. A subset or race or nation of people takes over the land of weaker subsets in order to increase the size of THEIR population, resources and wealth. Some assimilate the loser, some enslave, some attemot to exterminate. The Moors immediately mated with all of the indigenous females of breeding age. The Romans enslaved and subjected the loser to their laws. Hitler was busy eliminating them all together.

The Native Americans refused to assimilate, so they were quarantined on reservations. More humane than exterminating them, but it has the same effect. Instead of two cultures mingling and being the stronger for it, they were put into museums for us to marvel at.

The unfortunate thing for the NA's was that they were technologically unadvanced, and eventually outnumbered. Their lifestyle required more land per capita than the pre industrial Europeans, and meant that there were less of them to fight the white man.

All this said, I'm sorry, but the Native Americans lost. Sad for them, but again, THEY LOST. you don't pay the loser. He lost. This is the real world. Sucks to say it, and I sound like FileNotFound, but that's my opinion on the matter.


I should add that I'm not saying the "white man" is stronger or smarter than the Native American, or any other race. Just that at the end of the day, that's how it is. I would hope that my opinion would be the same if I was of another race, but then who can say?

.....er, that's all I have to say about that.......

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by quzah
What? Ok, let's get this straight: "NA" like to be recognized as each their own "nation". The Charokee Nation, the Apache Nation, etc. So it's OK for all of these "somewhat related nations" to kill eachother, but when an outside "nation" comes in, it's wrong? Am I the only one who things this is absolutely absurd?

Depends on how you look at it. I think the Whites killing off Native Americans is rather different than, say, the Germans killing off the French. Both situations suck...no doubt about that. But in the case of the Native Americans, not only were cultures being eliminated, but an entire race as well.

As a real life example, the various African tribes were killing each other before Europeans colonized the continent. Now I don't know about you, but I'd say that the Europeans going in there, killing people, taking people away and stealing resources was incredibly wrong, much worse than African tribes killing each other...or the various European nationalities killing each other.

And in the end, the Native Americans were killed in part b/c of who they were...and nearly annihilated. And even if they did go peacefully, many of them were still fucked by the government.

So like I said earlier in this thread...given what happened to them, what they get now seems fair.

As an aside, while institutions like the Bureau of Indian Affairs "work" with all Native Americans, a lot of the nitty gritty between Native Americans and the various levels of government is handled on a tribal level.

Ok, so how long is "good enough" for whitey to pay NA? 100 more years? Five more years? 500 more years? 1000 more years?

Who knows? Possibly forever. The situation with the Native Americans is unique compared to the other minorities in this country.

You do realize that "whitey" isn't going to be the majority for long.

So what do you think will happen then? Do you think that whites will become the persecuted minority?

I doubt it. One can be a minority and still discriminate against the majority. One needs only to look at apartheid-era South Africa.

Jimbo, you make some good points; however, let me ask you this...who was the real loser in the end? The Native Americans, who certainly got their asses whupped (minus Custer and a few other battles)...or Whites, who missed a golden opportunity to learn about new and different cultures?