What Are Your Thought On Taking The Native American's Land?
Options
5 Grand
Members Posts: 12,869 ✭✭✭✭✭
From what I understand when the Europeans came here the Native Americans were technologically behind. They didn't have any buildings. They didn't have metals. They weren't farming or raising livestock. They would go out into the woods and hunt down an animal or pick fruits and vegetables from trees but they had no agricultural advancement. They were basically hunters and gatherers in a time when Europeans were navigating the world. They lived in Teepees.
And before anybody accuses me of being racist or Eurocentric, I'm part Native American. But I'd have to admit, that if the Native Americans were living in teepees and hunting and gathering, the Europeans did a good job of taking the land and making it useful through technological advancement. The Europeans built railroads, telephone wires, highways and airports that connected California to New York.
From the research I've done, the Native Americans weren't on the verge of any technological advancements.
Your thoughts?
And before anybody accuses me of being racist or Eurocentric, I'm part Native American. But I'd have to admit, that if the Native Americans were living in teepees and hunting and gathering, the Europeans did a good job of taking the land and making it useful through technological advancement. The Europeans built railroads, telephone wires, highways and airports that connected California to New York.
From the research I've done, the Native Americans weren't on the verge of any technological advancements.
Your thoughts?
Comments
-
? wasn't squanto the one who taught them ? crackers how to grow food from the land?
-
Your analysis of Native Americans before European colonization is mad simplistic and very, very inaccurate.
Native Americans like the Mississipi Mound Builders, Aztecs, Mayans and the Incas created huge civilizations that rivaled anything Europeans or Asians created. The city of Ancient Cahokia in modern day Illinois had 30,000 people living in it at a time when London and Paris were ? covered villages.
Natives diverted rivers, irrigated fields, build massive stone palaces, discovered advanced astronomy and medical practices hundreds of years before the Europeans.
Yes...some Native American tribes were nomadic hunter gatherers but that is just ONE facet of an incredibly varied number of civilizations and societies. And there's an argument to be made that there's nothing "worse" or "less civilized" than being a hunter gatherer.
Hunter gatherer societies have complex customs, customs and languages. They're not automatically "savages" that deserve to have their hunting grounds stolen and their livelihood reduced to beggary. -
Euro founded technological progress isn't everything. Just because it is one of the current bars of achievement and something we exalt only goes to show the limitations of the bounds of our minds within the current paradigm.
To my knowledge they (Native Americans) didn't have cancers, ? , car notes, credit scores, child support, high housing costs, autism, environmental pollution, GMO foods, declining testosterone and sperm counts, ? ? , mass imprisonment, etc either.
.....all predicated on black slavery. Yeah they did a "good job" of taking the land.But I'd have to admit, that if the Native Americans were living in teepees and hunting and gathering, the Europeans did a good job of taking the land and making it useful through technological advancement. The Europeans built railroads,...,
....didn't Chinese ppl build the railroads too (or something like that)
...and useful for what? Their vision and organic progresses.
Lol.
You love the "white mans" world and have been thoroughly programmed thoroughly by their vision. What they did was crash the Americas and reboot it, including your mind....and brought it up with their belief system and vision. Go back to the Reason and stick to rap music threads.
-
From what I understand when the Europeans came here the Native Americans were technologically behind. They didn't have any buildings. They didn't have metals. They weren't farming or raising livestock. They would go out into the woods and hunt down an animal or pick fruits and vegetables from trees but they had no agricultural advancement. They were basically hunters and gatherers in a time when Europeans were navigating the world. They lived in Teepees.
And before anybody accuses me of being racist or Eurocentric, I'm part Native American. But I'd have to admit, that if the Native Americans were living in teepees and hunting and gathering, the Europeans did a good job of taking the land and making it useful through technological advancement. The Europeans built railroads, telephone wires, highways and airports that connected California to New York.
From the research I've done, the Native Americans weren't on the verge of any technological advancements.
Your thoughts?
This must be your theme song
https://youtu.be/q72U8y2sayM -
Sandinista wrote: »Your analysis of Native Americans before European colonization is mad simplistic and very, very inaccurate.
Native Americans like the Mississipi Mound Builders, Aztecs, Mayans and the Incas created huge civilizations that rivaled anything Europeans or Asians created. The city of Ancient Cahokia in modern day Illinois had 30,000 people living in it at a time when London and Paris were ? covered villages.
Yeah I know about the Incas, Aztecs, Olmecs and Mayans, but those civilizations were in Central and South America. I know there's pyramids that are still standing. But compared to The Cathedrals that the Europeans built they were primitive
leftcoastkev wrote: »Euro founded technological progress isn't everything. Just because it is one of the current bars of achievement and something we exalt only goes to show the limitations of the bounds of our minds within the current paradigm.
To my knowledge they didn't have cancers, ? , car notes, credit scores, child support, high housing costs, autism, environmental pollution, GMO foods, declining testosterone and sperm counts, ? ? , mass imprisonment, etc either.
.....all predicated on black slavery. Yeah they did a "good job" of taking the land.But I'd have to admit, that if the Native Americans were living in teepees and hunting and gathering, the Europeans did a good job of taking the land and making it useful through technological advancement. The Europeans built railroads,...,
....didn't Chinese ppl build the railroads too (or something like that)
...and useful for what? Their vision and organic progresses.
Lol.
You love the "white mans" world and have been thoroughly programmed thoroughly by their vision. What they did was crash the Americas and reboot it, including your mind....and brought it up with their belief system and vision. Go back to the Reason and stick to rap music threads.
No need for ad hominem attacks. Just say what you have to say and give me a chance to respond.
My point is, the Europeans were advanced enough to find the Americas, not the other way around. The Europeans were advanced enough to take the Native American's land, not the other way around. The Europeans wrote the history books, not the other way around.
Your thoughts? -
Sandinista wrote: »Your analysis of Native Americans before European colonization is mad simplistic and very, very inaccurate.
Native Americans like the Mississipi Mound Builders, Aztecs, Mayans and the Incas created huge civilizations that rivaled anything Europeans or Asians created. The city of Ancient Cahokia in modern day Illinois had 30,000 people living in it at a time when London and Paris were ? covered villages.
Yeah I know about the Incas, Aztecs, Olmecs and Mayans, but those civilizations were in Central and South America. I know there's pyramids that are still standing. But compared to The Cathedrals that the Europeans built they were primitiveleftcoastkev wrote: »Euro founded technological progress isn't everything. Just because it is one of the current bars of achievement and something we exalt only goes to show the limitations of the bounds of our minds within the current paradigm.
To my knowledge they didn't have cancers, ? , car notes, credit scores, child support, high housing costs, autism, environmental pollution, GMO foods, declining testosterone and sperm counts, ? ? , mass imprisonment, etc either.
.....all predicated on black slavery. Yeah they did a "good job" of taking the land.But I'd have to admit, that if the Native Americans were living in teepees and hunting and gathering, the Europeans did a good job of taking the land and making it useful through technological advancement. The Europeans built railroads,...,
....didn't Chinese ppl build the railroads too (or something like that)
...and useful for what? Their vision and organic progresses.
Lol.
You love the "white mans" world and have been thoroughly programmed thoroughly by their vision. What they did was crash the Americas and reboot it, including your mind....and brought it up with their belief system and vision. Go back to the Reason and stick to rap music threads.
No need for ad hominem attacks. Just say what you have to say and give me a chance to respond.
My point is, the Europeans were advanced enough to find the Americas, not the other way around. The Europeans were advanced enough to take the Native American's land, not the other way around. The Europeans wrote the history books, not the other way around.
Your thoughts?
I ain't 100% sure if it's factual or not but I read somewhere that it was the moors who built most of those cathedrals -
ghostdog56 wrote: »Sandinista wrote: »Your analysis of Native Americans before European colonization is mad simplistic and very, very inaccurate.
Native Americans like the Mississipi Mound Builders, Aztecs, Mayans and the Incas created huge civilizations that rivaled anything Europeans or Asians created. The city of Ancient Cahokia in modern day Illinois had 30,000 people living in it at a time when London and Paris were ? covered villages.
Yeah I know about the Incas, Aztecs, Olmecs and Mayans, but those civilizations were in Central and South America. I know there's pyramids that are still standing. But compared to The Cathedrals that the Europeans built they were primitiveleftcoastkev wrote: »Euro founded technological progress isn't everything. Just because it is one of the current bars of achievement and something we exalt only goes to show the limitations of the bounds of our minds within the current paradigm.
To my knowledge they didn't have cancers, ? , car notes, credit scores, child support, high housing costs, autism, environmental pollution, GMO foods, declining testosterone and sperm counts, ? ? , mass imprisonment, etc either.
.....all predicated on black slavery. Yeah they did a "good job" of taking the land.But I'd have to admit, that if the Native Americans were living in teepees and hunting and gathering, the Europeans did a good job of taking the land and making it useful through technological advancement. The Europeans built railroads,...,
....didn't Chinese ppl build the railroads too (or something like that)
...and useful for what? Their vision and organic progresses.
Lol.
You love the "white mans" world and have been thoroughly programmed thoroughly by their vision. What they did was crash the Americas and reboot it, including your mind....and brought it up with their belief system and vision. Go back to the Reason and stick to rap music threads.
No need for ad hominem attacks. Just say what you have to say and give me a chance to respond.
My point is, the Europeans were advanced enough to find the Americas, not the other way around. The Europeans were advanced enough to take the Native American's land, not the other way around. The Europeans wrote the history books, not the other way around.
Your thoughts?
I ain't 100% sure if it's factual or not but I read somewhere that it was the moors who built most of those cathedrals
Nope.
It was the masons -
Sandinista wrote: »Your analysis of Native Americans before European colonization is mad simplistic and very, very inaccurate.
Native Americans like the Mississipi Mound Builders, Aztecs, Mayans and the Incas created huge civilizations that rivaled anything Europeans or Asians created. The city of Ancient Cahokia in modern day Illinois had 30,000 people living in it at a time when London and Paris were ? covered villages.
Yeah I know about the Incas, Aztecs, Olmecs and Mayans, but those civilizations were in Central and South America. I know there's pyramids that are still standing. But compared to The Cathedrals that the Europeans built they were primitiveleftcoastkev wrote: »Euro founded technological progress isn't everything. Just because it is one of the current bars of achievement and something we exalt only goes to show the limitations of the bounds of our minds within the current paradigm.
To my knowledge they didn't have cancers, ? , car notes, credit scores, child support, high housing costs, autism, environmental pollution, GMO foods, declining testosterone and sperm counts, ? ? , mass imprisonment, etc either.
.....all predicated on black slavery. Yeah they did a "good job" of taking the land.But I'd have to admit, that if the Native Americans were living in teepees and hunting and gathering, the Europeans did a good job of taking the land and making it useful through technological advancement. The Europeans built railroads,...,
....didn't Chinese ppl build the railroads too (or something like that)
...and useful for what? Their vision and organic progresses.
Lol.
You love the "white mans" world and have been thoroughly programmed thoroughly by their vision. What they did was crash the Americas and reboot it, including your mind....and brought it up with their belief system and vision. Go back to the Reason and stick to rap music threads.
No need for ad hominem attacks. Just say what you have to say and give me a chance to respond.
My point is, the Europeans were advanced enough to find the Americas, not the other way around. The Europeans were advanced enough to take the Native American's land, not the other way around. The Europeans wrote the history books, not the other way around.
Your thoughts?
At the 2nd underlined....well there ya go.
How do you know nobody else had their own historical records?
Well "the white man said in his book that...."
Of course their (hi)story is going to indoctrinate you into their belief system that they were the most advanced, the first to do this and that. If you destroy others historical records.....ya know like they destroyed black language, religion, and names during slavery and brought us BACK up speaking English, worshipping white Jesus, with non-African(or black native) names don't u think they'd destroy others achievements and lie in their history books.....
-
leftcoastkev wrote: »Sandinista wrote: »Your analysis of Native Americans before European colonization is mad simplistic and very, very inaccurate.
Native Americans like the Mississipi Mound Builders, Aztecs, Mayans and the Incas created huge civilizations that rivaled anything Europeans or Asians created. The city of Ancient Cahokia in modern day Illinois had 30,000 people living in it at a time when London and Paris were ? covered villages.
Yeah I know about the Incas, Aztecs, Olmecs and Mayans, but those civilizations were in Central and South America. I know there's pyramids that are still standing. But compared to The Cathedrals that the Europeans built they were primitiveleftcoastkev wrote: »Euro founded technological progress isn't everything. Just because it is one of the current bars of achievement and something we exalt only goes to show the limitations of the bounds of our minds within the current paradigm.
To my knowledge they didn't have cancers, ? , car notes, credit scores, child support, high housing costs, autism, environmental pollution, GMO foods, declining testosterone and sperm counts, ? ? , mass imprisonment, etc either.
.....all predicated on black slavery. Yeah they did a "good job" of taking the land.But I'd have to admit, that if the Native Americans were living in teepees and hunting and gathering, the Europeans did a good job of taking the land and making it useful through technological advancement. The Europeans built railroads,...,
....didn't Chinese ppl build the railroads too (or something like that)
...and useful for what? Their vision and organic progresses.
Lol.
You love the "white mans" world and have been thoroughly programmed thoroughly by their vision. What they did was crash the Americas and reboot it, including your mind....and brought it up with their belief system and vision. Go back to the Reason and stick to rap music threads.
No need for ad hominem attacks. Just say what you have to say and give me a chance to respond.
My point is, the Europeans were advanced enough to find the Americas, not the other way around. The Europeans were advanced enough to take the Native American's land, not the other way around. The Europeans wrote the history books, not the other way around.
Your thoughts?
At the 2nd underlined....well there ya go.
How do you know nobody else had their own historical records?
Well "the white man said in his book that...."
Of course their (hi)story is going to indoctrinate you into their belief system that they were the most advanced, the first to do this and that. If you destroy others historical records.....ya know like they destroyed black language, religion, and names during slavery and brought us BACK up speaking English, worshipping white Jesus, with non-African(or black native) names don't u think they'd destroy others achievements and lie in their history books.....
I get it. The white man is the devil and history is written by the winner. I read The Autobiography of Malcolm X when I was a junior in high school. I used to build with the gods in my early 20s. I'm a firm believer in what Elijah Muhammad taught.
But having said that, I don't know of any Native American achievements and/or technological breakthroughs. From everything I've studied and learned the Europeans were more advanced because they traded with the Arabs, who traded with the Chinese and Indians (from India). Whenever the Europeans, Indians or Chinese would invent something the Arabs were the middleman. This went on for hundreds, if not thousands of years. In the meanwhile the Native Americans in North America weren't trading with anybody so they didn't have anybody to bounce ideas off of. As a result they didn't have any Chinese, Indian or Arab influence. Thats why the Europeans were so advanced, not because they invented things at a faster pace, but because they were part of a trading exchange that facilitated new inventions.
For example, the Chinese invented gunpowder and the Europeans got ahold of it. In contrast, the Native Americans weren't trading with anybody so they didn't get gunpowder until it was introduced by the Europeans. The Europeans sold the Native Americans guns and bullets so they could fight each other but didn't tell them how it was made. As a result the Native Americans fought against each other with the European's weapons and annihilated each other. When it was all over the Europeans stepped in and cultivated the land with the Arabs, Indians and Chinese technology.
Having said that, Americans did a hell of a job building America. I know there was slave labor, the Chinese built the railroads and got ripped off, and there were plenty of African American inventors but when I drive on the highway and look how all the exits interlock with each other I'm amazed by the technological advances that we've made.
Unless you can prove otherwise, the Native Americans weren't anywhere near the level of technological advancements that the Europeans brought to America. -
If you don't get your stupid uneducated ass tf outta here!
This has got to be the worst example of white d*ckriding I've seen all year!
Did he really post the Sienna Cathedral as an example of a more advanced structure than the Mayan civilization even though it was built almost 4000 years later?
And before the white man drew up the borders there was no distinction between North, South and Central America.......it was all the same land mass with its indigenous people.
Threadstarter need to go take SEVERAL remedial history courses.
PEACE
-
The True Flesh wrote: »If you don't get your stupid uneducated ass tf outta here!
This has got to be the worst example of white d*ckriding I've seen all year!
Did he really post the Sienna Cathedral as an example of a more advanced structure than the Mayan civilization even though it was built almost 4000 years later?
And before the white man drew up the borders there was no distinction between North, South and Central America.......it was all the same land mass with its indigenous people.
Threadstarter need to go take SEVERAL remedial history courses.
PEACE
I posted a cathedral. Not saying that particular one I posted is from the 10th Century, but there are cathedrals from the 10th Century in Europe that are still standing. They are more elaborate than the basic pyramids the Olmecs, Aztecs, Incas and Mayans built.
Furthermore, the Europeans were using metals, particularly iron which the Native Americans didn't have.
If you want I can look for a cathedral that was constructed earlier but I think you get my point. -
You sir, are a ? idiot. Europeans, first of all, got their navigation/building knowledge from the Moors, so stop the misappropriation of credit. Also, civilization is subjective. Just because the Natives didn't have certain technological creations, doesn't mean they were primitive or uncivilized. They're the ones who actually kept some of those Europeans alive and well when they first arrived. I can go on, but I'm not going to do the work for your ? .
-
You sir, are a ? idiot. Europeans, first of all, got their navigation/building knowledge from the Moors, so stop the misappropriation of credit. Also, civilization is subjective. Just because the Natives didn't have certain technological creations, doesn't mean they were primitive or uncivilized. They're the ones who actually kept some of those Europeans alive and well when they first arrived. I can go on, but I'm not going to do the work for your ? .
Alright first of all, your the one who's uncivilized because your making ad hominem attacks on a message board.
Second of all, saying "the Europeans got their navigation/building from the Moors" is a pretty stupid thing to say. As I explained in an earlier post, the Arabs traded with the Europeans and the Asians. So, while its true that the Europeans got some of their technology from the Arabs, it was a two way street. Its not like the Europeans were sitting around with their thumbs up their ? while the Moors did all the work. I'm sure there were European contributions that the Arabs traded with the Chinese and vice versa. If you can't acknowledge that then you're naive.
Anyway, so far nobody has even addressed the original question in my O/P. The Europeans clearly had better weapons than the Native Americans. Their technology was better. They had ships that could cross the Atlantic. I've never heard of the Native Americans crossing the Atlantic but if you can prove otherwise I'm all ears.
This is what I'm getting at; The land in North America, from what I understand was uncultivated and not developed. If you've ever flown across the U.S. in an airplane you've seen the 100,000 acre farms in the midwest. The Native Americans weren't farming on that level.
So what I'm getting at, if the Native Americans weren't maximizing the potential of the land, did the Europeans have the moral right to take the land and do something with it?
As I understand it, the whole Midwest was basically uncultivated. 500 years later Americans have developed every square inch of the Midwest and produce wheat, corn and other commodities. We've built cities, entire metropolises on both coasts. At the rate the Native Americans were going none of that would have happened.
So were the Europeans "wrong" for doing what they did? -
Bro science mixed with ? revisionist history.
-
Anyway, so far nobody has even addressed the original question in my O/P. The Europeans clearly had better weapons than the Native Americans. Their technology was better. They had ships that could cross the Atlantic. I've never heard of the Native Americans crossing the Atlantic but if you can prove otherwise I'm all ears.
This is what I'm getting at; The land in North America, from what I understand was uncultivated and not developed. If you've ever flown across the U.S. in an airplane you've seen the 100,000 acre farms in the midwest. The Native Americans weren't farming on that level.
So what I'm getting at, if the Native Americans weren't maximizing the potential of the land, did the Europeans have the moral right to take the land and do something with it?
As I understand it, the whole Midwest was basically uncultivated. 500 years later Americans have developed every square inch of the Midwest and produce wheat, corn and other commodities. We've built cities, entire metropolises on both coasts. At the rate the Native Americans were going none of that would have happened.
So were the Europeans "wrong" for doing what they did?
So basically you're all for mass gentrification.
If a rich person feels like you aren't maximizing the potential of your home where you're raising your kids, is if for the better that someone with more money and ingenuity commandeers your house? You know, for the betterment of their future generations and relegate your family to the shed in the back (reservation)?
And no the land was probably not developed for the sustainability of a mass of Europeans. Nor should it have been.
The land was sustainable for the original inhabitants.
It would not have been necessary either. But that is not to say they wouldn't have advanced in a comparable way that doesn't resemble what we view as "today's technological advancements".We've built cities, entire metropolises on both coasts. At the rate the Native Americans were going none of that would have happened
-
leftcoastkev wrote: »
Anyway, so far nobody has even addressed the original question in my O/P. The Europeans clearly had better weapons than the Native Americans. Their technology was better. They had ships that could cross the Atlantic. I've never heard of the Native Americans crossing the Atlantic but if you can prove otherwise I'm all ears.
This is what I'm getting at; The land in North America, from what I understand was uncultivated and not developed. If you've ever flown across the U.S. in an airplane you've seen the 100,000 acre farms in the midwest. The Native Americans weren't farming on that level.
So what I'm getting at, if the Native Americans weren't maximizing the potential of the land, did the Europeans have the moral right to take the land and do something with it?
As I understand it, the whole Midwest was basically uncultivated. 500 years later Americans have developed every square inch of the Midwest and produce wheat, corn and other commodities. We've built cities, entire metropolises on both coasts. At the rate the Native Americans were going none of that would have happened.
So were the Europeans "wrong" for doing what they did?
So basically you're all for mass gentrification.
If a rich person feels like you aren't maximizing the potential of your home where you're raising your kids, is if for the better that someone with more money and ingenuity commandeers your house? You know, for the betterment of their future generations and relegate your family to the shed in the back (reservation)?
And no the land was probably not developed for the sustainability of a mass of Europeans. Nor should it have been.
The land was sustainable for the original inhabitants.
It would not have been necessary either. But that is not to say they wouldn't have advanced in a comparable way that doesn't resemble what we view as "today's technological advancements".We've built cities, entire metropolises on both coasts. At the rate the Native Americans were going none of that would have happened
Finally a coherent response.
So @leftcoastkev let me ask you this; You're an American right? You like driving cars, going to the movies, talking on the telephone, using the computer, and all of the technological advances that we have in America right?
Would you rather be living in a society that lacked technological advances? Would you rather live in a society that had zero European influence? I'm talking about living in a glorified Teepee (say a wooden hut) Would you rather have to hunt for your food with a bow and arrow? Would you want to have to go fishing every time you wanted fish?
Or would you prefer to live in a society that produces a surplus of what they need and trades the excess commodities to other cultures across the globe? So for example, I'm pretty sure apples are an American fruit. If you plant more apple trees than you could possibly eat, you can trade the excess apples to the Europeans or the Arabs for something that they can grow in their geographical region that doesn't grow here.
Thats how the Europeans think/thought when they arrived here. They saw all the unused farmland and used it to produce more than they needed, then they loaded up their ships and took the goods to Europe, or the Middle East.
So yeah, would you rather be hunting and gathering or would you rather live in a society that overproduces what we need so you can go to the store and buy whatever you want? -
leftcoastkev wrote: »
Anyway, so far nobody has even addressed the original question in my O/P. The Europeans clearly had better weapons than the Native Americans. Their technology was better. They had ships that could cross the Atlantic. I've never heard of the Native Americans crossing the Atlantic but if you can prove otherwise I'm all ears.
This is what I'm getting at; The land in North America, from what I understand was uncultivated and not developed. If you've ever flown across the U.S. in an airplane you've seen the 100,000 acre farms in the midwest. The Native Americans weren't farming on that level.
So what I'm getting at, if the Native Americans weren't maximizing the potential of the land, did the Europeans have the moral right to take the land and do something with it?
As I understand it, the whole Midwest was basically uncultivated. 500 years later Americans have developed every square inch of the Midwest and produce wheat, corn and other commodities. We've built cities, entire metropolises on both coasts. At the rate the Native Americans were going none of that would have happened.
So were the Europeans "wrong" for doing what they did?
So basically you're all for mass gentrification.
If a rich person feels like you aren't maximizing the potential of your home where you're raising your kids, is if for the better that someone with more money and ingenuity commandeers your house? You know, for the betterment of their future generations and relegate your family to the shed in the back (reservation)?
And no the land was probably not developed for the sustainability of a mass of Europeans. Nor should it have been.
The land was sustainable for the original inhabitants.
It would not have been necessary either. But that is not to say they wouldn't have advanced in a comparable way that doesn't resemble what we view as "today's technological advancements".We've built cities, entire metropolises on both coasts. At the rate the Native Americans were going none of that would have happened
Finally a coherent response.
So @leftcoastkev let me ask you this; You're an American right? You like driving cars, going to the movies, talking on the telephone, using the computer, and all of the technological advances that we have in America right?
Would you rather be living in a society that lacked technological advances? Would you rather live in a society that had zero European influence? I'm talking about living in a glorified Teepee (say a wooden hut) Would you rather have to hunt for your food with a bow and arrow? Would you want to have to go fishing every time you wanted fish?
Or would you prefer to live in a society that produces a surplus of what they need and trades the excess commodities to other cultures across the globe? So for example, I'm pretty sure apples are an American fruit. If you plant more apple trees than you could possibly eat, you can trade the excess apples to the Europeans or the Arabs for something that they can grow in their geographical region that doesn't grow here.
Thats how the Europeans think/thought when they arrived here. They saw all the unused farmland and used it to produce more than they needed, then they loaded up their ships and took the goods to Europe, or the Middle East.
So yeah, would you rather be hunting and gathering or would you rather live in a society that overproduces what we need so you can go to the store and buy whatever you want?
It doesn't matter how they thought. When I go in the jewelry store, I could smash and grab, sell, start a few more businesses, and buy my parents new houses. Doesn't justify it tho.
I think in English as a first language, have a french last name, look in the mirror and see a black man who doesn't know what language his ancestors spoke and don't know what their surnames were. We got the "crash and reboot". A black man looking in the mirror and thinking in English with a French last name is as ? as a Chinese man with a Nigerian name looking in the mirror thinking in Igbo.
I live in America. But just because was born into it and I'm used to "Everything I've known" doesn't negate the fact that the system and means to achieve these things are evil and ? up. I participate in the American experience, I enjoy it, knowing I'm not going to change the world. I'll roll with what's in front of me.
Am I going to participate in this evil ? up existence with the benefit of high technology and excess off the backs of deaths, destruction, and carnage even to my own people? Yep. But am I going to tell the truth about it even if it shames me? Yep. Is there a justification or rationalization for it. No. So, in some ways, I'm probably just as twisted as the European at this point. I've accepted that.
The world as a whole would have been better off if the Europeans never went down this road. I'm okay if America falls and the standard of living goes down. We would suffer, but America (and Europe by extension) deserves it for it's impact on the global population.
To say that Native Americans would have progressed 0 in the past 600 years is small minded. But again, all you know is what you know.
-
leftcoastkev wrote: »
It doesn't matter how they thought. When I go in the jewelry store, I could smash and grab, sell, start a few more businesses, and buy my parents new houses. Doesn't justify it tho.
I think in English as a first language, have a french last name, look in the mirror and see a black man who doesn't know what language his ancestors spoke and don't know what their surnames were. We got the "crash and reboot". A black man looking in the mirror and thinking in English with a French last name is as ? as a Chinese man with a Nigerian name looking in the mirror thinking in Igbo.
I live in America. But just because was born into it and I'm used to "Everything I've known" doesn't negate the fact that the system and means to achieve these things are evil and ? up. I participate in the American experience, I enjoy it, knowing I'm not going to change the world. I'll roll with what's in front of me.
Am I going to participate in this evil ? up existence with the benefit of high technology and excess off the backs of deaths, destruction, and carnage even to my own people? Yep. But am I going to tell the truth about it even if it shames me? Yep. Is there a justification or rationalization for it. No. So, in some ways, I'm probably just as twisted as the European at this point. I've accepted that.
The world as a whole would have been better off if the Europeans never went down this road. I'm okay if America falls and the standard of living goes down. We would suffer, but America (and Europe by extension) deserves it for it's impact on the global population.
To say that Native Americans would have progressed 0 in the past 600 years is small minded. But again, all you know is what you know.
Thanks for the response.
You made some good points. In all of our studies, history is written by the winner. I think in English too. I have a English (WASP) last name but my ancestry is Native American and African. I'm light skinned so if I was around 400 years ago I could have passed for ? or Mullato. I would have been a house slave.
I know a lot of pro-black cats that say Africa had these great civilizations and that the history books have been whitewashed to hide the original man's accomplishments. They want us to believe that we were barefoot running around with bones through our noses.
While I don't claim to be an expert on African History, I think the original advanced African societies were on the Eastern side of Africa, not the West (Ghana, Mali and Shonghai notwithstanding). The West African civilizations traded with the Arabs in the beginning of the first millennia AD but somewhere along the line the Europeans overpowered and conquered West Africa which resulted in the trans-Atlantic slave trade. But you probably know that.
I guess what I'm getting at is, was slavery a blessing in disguise?
Was the annexation of the Native American's land a blessing in disguise?
How come people of Native American descent don't stop what their doing, quit their jobs and live on a reservation?
How come all these pro-Black Nationalists (e.g. Colin Kaepernick) don't pack their bags and go back to Africa?
One reason is because we built this country (the White House was built by slaves) so we have a legitimate claim to the equity of the United States.
But the second reason is because the United States is the best country and you wouldn't want to live anywhere else, otherwise you would have packed your bags and gone back to Africa.
You can blame the Whiteman for all of societies problems, you can call the Whiteman the devil because of the transatlantic slave trade, the genocide of the Native Americans and the holocaust but at the end of the day none of use want to go back to Africa permanently. -
Because Africa has been colonized, destroyed, and drained of resources by the European and American empires. Do some research on King Leopold II and the Congo and also present day European and American companies that make their living off ? the Congo's land of resources.but at the end of the day none of use want to go back to Africa permanently.
e.g.,
http://projectcensored.org/19-american-companies-exploit-the-congo/
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/oct/22/congo.rorycarroll
That is only 1 region.I guess what I'm getting at is, was slavery a blessing in disguise?
No. Somethings are worth more than money and access to excess.
1. Dignity
2. Knowledge of self
3. Self-Respect
4. Game
I'm not native american, but my personal opinion is no.Was the annexation of the Native American's land a blessing in disguise?
Again, not Native American (that I know of by bloodline), but in my opinion it's likely because those that aren't are used to the lifestyle and/or feel "hell it's my land, why should i go live in a corner created and designated by foreigners.How come people of Native American descent don't stop what their doing, quit their jobs and live on a reservation?
For what? How does he even know that the black lineage of his people are actually from Africa? For all we know, they could have boated black native american people from Texas to Mississippi, broke them down, and later told us we're all from Africa. We don't KNOW we only choose to believe/disbelieve whatever they wrote as factual.How come all these pro-Black Nationalists (e.g. Colin Kaepernick) don't pack their bags and go back to Africa?
But other than that....probably because they are used to the lifestyle, they were born in it. This is all they know. But they see the hypocrisy in it so they call it out or take a stand for it in some manner.
As long as America talks double sided e.g., "we are all equal. Land of the Free" but practices the opposite, the door is opened for pro-Black nationalists (although I don't consider Kapernick as one) and other people to call them out on the hypocrisy. If the constitution is thrown out and America decides as official policy that all people are not equal, we are not the land of the free, racial profiling is legal, certain people have less rights, etc (again as official policy) that door will be closed.
-
Well if the Europeans didn't do what they did, Africans would still be in Africa and the Native Americans would be here, but the world economy wouldn't be what it is. The Native Americans and West Africans were technologically behind. They didn't have guns, they didn't have ships that could cross the ocean, and most importantly, the Africans and Native Americans didn't trade with the Arabs (who traded with the Asians) which is why they were so far behind.
? works in mysterious ways. Think over that.
I think Black Americans are better off having gone through slavery, lost all knowledge of self and then gained it back over the 20th century. Fredrick Douglas, W.E.B. Dubois, Booker T Washington, Marcus Garvey, Elijah Muhammad, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, Stokely Charmichael, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, AL Sharpton and President Obama led and inspired generation after generation and we became a new race of people.
Sure there's a lot of poverty and inequality within the Black community, but there's also a lot of success stories. There's Black doctors, lawyers, stockbrokers, engineers, physicists, politicians, generals, and just about any other profession you can think of. Its a matter of looking at the glass as half full or half empty. I'm looking at the glass half full. While the annexation of the Native American's land followed by the subsequent genocide that took place and the transatlantic slave trade, those are arguably the worst atrocities in the history of mankind, but what doesn't ? you makes you stronger.
-
Well if the Europeans didn't do what they did, Africans would still be in Africa and the Native Americans would be here[/b], but the world economy wouldn't be what it is. The Native Americans and West Africans were technologically behind. They didn't have guns, they didn't have ships that could cross the ocean, and most importantly, the Africans and Native Americans didn't trade with the Arabs (who traded with the Asians) which is why they were so far behind.
? works in mysterious ways. Think over that.
I think Black Americans are better off having gone through slavery, lost all knowledge of self and then gained it back over the 20th century. Fredrick Douglas, W.E.B. Dubois, Booker T Washington, Marcus Garvey, Elijah Muhammad, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, Stokely Charmichael, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, AL Sharpton and President Obama led and inspired generation after generation and we became a new race of people.
Sure there's a lot of poverty and inequality within the Black community, but there's also a lot of success stories. There's Black doctors, lawyers, stockbrokers, engineers, physicists, politicians, generals, and just about any other profession you can think of. Its a matter of looking at the glass as half full or half empty. I'm looking at the glass half full. While the annexation of the Native American's land followed by the subsequent genocide that took place and the transatlantic slave trade, those are arguably the worst atrocities in the history of mankind, but what doesn't ? you makes you stronger.
We wouldn't even exist if history happened differently.
