100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: the jewish holocaust | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
I actually think there is a disease in which europeans and their offspring think that what they have done to the rest of the world is justified. There population grew so they should go rape and pillage the rest of the world. Also to say that enslaving people and treating them as a disposable, which is exactly what was done to slaves, until the slave trade was made illegal. Then and only then did slave owners start to actively bred up and perhaps treat up more like an animal than trash. We also know that if as many of the Native people did not die of disease, whites would have slaughtered that many more to gain what they perceived as theirs. Slavery has existed since antiquity. See the Wiki article on the subject. The Europeans were by no means inventors of slavery or colonialism. Asia for example. Slaves almost by definition as property have been considered "subhuman" i.e. inferior to their captors wherever slavery was practiced. To say that the Native peoples would have been slaughtered is to ignore history. The opportunity to kill all the Native peoples was there. They were not killed. They were pushed off of their home lands, brutalized, but they were not eradicated nor enslaved. There is no excuse for their treatment and I do not excuse it here. Had the imported diseases not infected them then no one knows what would have happened. But it is hypothetical sadly and moot. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, of course every deceitful, greedy, genocidal, bigoted, destructive action against the first peoples is atrociously appalling. so in saying this to you it would be the same as if the first peoples had went to Europe and wiped out 200,000,000 million Europeans or more through war and disease or other causes? But I have to agree also with s1owhand's evaluation of the fundamental purpose and intention behind the actions. The white man was multiplying at a faster rate than any other race. The natural result of this was (as it has always been for every species on the planet) the expansion of the amount of space required to support the race. Although there was definitely bigotry and prejudice behind much of the slaughter of the first people, the basic driving force behind it was simply the natural instinct of an expanding population. And if looked at from a wide enough viewpoint (spacially as well as temporally) it really amounts to a small part of a single step in the evolution of man. In fact, from the standpoint of evolution, it would have been both unnatural and contra-survival from a racial standpoint for the white man to have voluntarily restricted his own expansion in order to preserve the static state of the first people's race. However, from my own microscopic viewpoint, I too am both outraged and saddened by the effective destruction of what I have imagined to be a truly beautiful and harmonious culture. And I wish the first people to make boatloads of money from their casinos and/or whatever other resources they have available. Although my reason for that are not in any desire for recompense, but in the desire I would have for anyone of ethics and integrity to flourish and prosper, regardless of any past or current discrimination. Now please don’t get me wrong Tribo. As I said, I am truly personally saddened by the thought that this once magnificently beautiful and harmonious culture is gone. But that is just my own emotional response to something that I am personally (though admittedly very slightly) involved with. And in the widest view, it is only self-centered conceit and personal emotional involvement (my own included) that makes it any more unfortunate than the loss of any other culture anywhere on the planet in the last 10,000 years. I don’t want to end this on a “but”, so I will say this. The sheer numbers involved put it way up on the list of all-time genocidal atrocities. In that sense it is one of, if not the worst in a very real and objective sense.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I actually think there is a disease in which europeans and their offspring think that what they have done to the rest of the world is justified. There population grew so they should go rape and pillage the rest of the world. Also to say that enslaving people and treating them as a disposable, which is exactly what was done to slaves, until the slave trade was made illegal. Then and only then did slave owners start to actively bred up and perhaps treat up more like an animal than trash. We also know that if as many of the Native people did not die of disease, whites would have slaughtered that many more to gain what they perceived as theirs. Slavery has existed since antiquity. See the Wiki article on the subject. The Europeans were by no means inventors of slavery or colonialism. Asia for example. Slaves almost by definition as property have been considered "subhuman" i.e. inferior to their captors wherever slavery was practiced. To say that the Native peoples would have been slaughtered is to ignore history. The opportunity to kill all the Native peoples was there. They were not killed. They were pushed off of their home lands, brutalized, but they were not eradicated nor enslaved. There is no excuse for their treatment and I do not excuse it here. Had the imported diseases not infected them then no one knows what would have happened. But it is hypothetical sadly and moot. but the original question has not been address, why must we as a people continue to support the jews, I think the jews in this country and those all over the world should take it upon themselves to do that now. the germans still continue to give survivors money. The natives people here are simply a proto type for how the palentinians are treated. Contain and then slowly push them off as much land as possible. sound similar? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, of course every deceitful, greedy, genocidal, bigoted, destructive action against the first peoples is atrociously appalling. so in saying this to you it would be the same as if the first peoples had went to Europe and wiped out 200,000,000 million Europeans or more through war and disease or other causes? But I have to agree also with s1owhand's evaluation of the fundamental purpose and intention behind the actions. The white man was multiplying at a faster rate than any other race. The natural result of this was (as it has always been for every species on the planet) the expansion of the amount of space required to support the race. Although there was definitely bigotry and prejudice behind much of the slaughter of the first people, the basic driving force behind it was simply the natural instinct of an expanding population. And if looked at from a wide enough viewpoint (spacially as well as temporally) it really amounts to a small part of a single step in the evolution of man. In fact, from the standpoint of evolution, it would have been both unnatural and contra-survival from a racial standpoint for the white man to have voluntarily restricted his own expansion in order to preserve the static state of the first people's race. However, from my own microscopic viewpoint, I too am both outraged and saddened by the effective destruction of what I have imagined to be a truly beautiful and harmonious culture. And I wish the first people to make boatloads of money from their casinos and/or whatever other resources they have available. Although my reason for that are not in any desire for recompense, but in the desire I would have for anyone of ethics and integrity to flourish and prosper, regardless of any past or current discrimination. Now please don’t get me wrong Tribo. As I said, I am truly personally saddened by the thought that this once magnificently beautiful and harmonious culture is gone. But that is just my own emotional response to something that I am personally (though admittedly very slightly) involved with. And in the widest view, it is only self-centered conceit and personal emotional involvement (my own included) that makes it any more unfortunate than the loss of any other culture anywhere on the planet in the last 10,000 years. I don’t want to end this on a “but”, so I will say this. The sheer numbers involved put it way up on the list of all-time genocidal atrocities. In that sense it is one of, if not the worst in a very real and objective sense. and that to me is where the mind set is wrong Sky, i appreciate your contributions and respect your opinions on many things. but the mind set is exactly what has to be changed and dealt with both on the matter of first peoples and the african amreicans who didn't ask to be here in the first place as well as others. you talk as if there is ownership of land in reality? no one owns their property here, they just think they do - if they really did mortgage companies could not foreclose and reposeses the properties. ownership is not something that can be given by mans ways. the first people understood this very well. what the first people [or many of them]want is to be allowed to live where they once lived no matter who owns the land by what ever rights they claim to have on its ownership.they wnat lands in the territories they once lived and would settle for any government land that is not used now for its own greedy needs and not inhabited by dwellers. none of the treaties were ever honored in full and most all were changed to suit the europeans needs as they grew. the intentions were to make this a country full of europeans, not to live [as they have elsewhere] in harmony with first people - the tradgedy did not end with the tribes and nations surrendering, it still continues Sky. so does the plight of the Afro-Americans and other injustices - there is no way to forgive and forget when it still exist! that would be like me hitting you in the nose on a daily basis and saying i'm sorry. What can we do? plenty - how bout for starters stopping the billions we send to other countries like israel, and stopping spending on un-necessary wars and imports and using that money to do what is right? how about giving over the lands set aside by the government for preserves to use as indian habitat? and i could go on but unfortunately we are now in the worst recission in my lifetime so i dint know how things will go in the near future to be able to proceed the outline of what could be done and accomplished. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
tribo
on
Sun 10/19/08 07:35 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Sun 10/19/08 08:38 PM
|
|
(quotes truncated in the interest of space) You raise an interesting point regarding the ownership of land. (I think it is ironic that what we call “real” property is actually the only type of property that is not real. and that to me is where the mind set is wrong Sky, i appreciate your contributions and respect your opinions on many things. but the mind set is exactly what has to be changed and dealt with both on the matter of first peoples and the african amreicans who didn't ask to be here in the first place as well as others. you talk as if there is ownership of land in reality? no one owns their property here, they just think they do - if they really did mortgage companies could not foreclose and reposeses the properties. ownership is not something that can be given by mans ways. the first people understood this very well. what the first people [or many of them]want is to be allowed to live where they once lived no matter who owns the land by what ever rights they claim to have on its ownership.they wnat lands in the territories they once lived and would settle for any government land that is not used now for its own greedy needs and not inhabited by dwellers. none of the treaties were ever honored in full and most all were changed to suit the europeans needs as they grew. the intentions were to make this a country full of europeans, not to live [as they have elsewhere] in harmony with first people - the tradgedy did not end with the tribes and nations surrendering, it still continues Sky. so does the plight of the Afro-Americans and other injustices - there is no way to forgive and forget when it still exist! that would be like me hitting you in the nose on a daily basis and saying i'm sorry. What can we do? plenty - how bout for starters stopping the billions we send to other countries like israel, and stopping spending on un-necessary wars and imports and using that money to do what is right? how about giving over the lands set aside by the government for preserves to use as indian habitat? and i could go on but unfortunately we are now in the worst recission in my lifetime so i dint know how things will go in the near future to be able to proceed the outline of what could be done and accomplished.  ) But to the point, yes, you’ve caught me out in getting sloppy with my language. But neither do I think it’s as black-and-white as you make it out to be. Although the word “ownership” is used, the issue has more to do with “control” than anything else. As you say, one cannot really “own” land. There’s really nothing tangible to own. “Land ownership” is, essentially, permission from the group to control an area. As you say, that permission can be revoked by foreclosures and condemnations and repossessions and other “group sanctioned actions.” So from a purely philosophical viewpoint, I’m not sure what to say about it. Obviously the white man should not have taken over control of the land with no consideration for the current “tenants”. No argument there. But as I said before, when viewed against the entire evolutionary line of mankind across the planet, the only real difference there is a matter of degree and personal involvement. Who pays whom and how much? And who decides? And how do they go about making the decision? And really, the answers to those questions are ultimately political and not religious and I have no faintest inkling of all the factors that would need to be considered in order to make a “fair” decision. Some of your suggestions sound promising and fair to me. I have no argument that the Native Americans and the African Americans (as well as many other ethnic groups) have been, and still are, discriminated against – and that it should stop. But I personally have no idea how to go about doing that other than to educate people when possible and set an example when not. Aside from all that, what I am most confused about is the matter of what you call the “mindset. What exactly is it and how should it be changed? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I actually think there is a disease in which europeans and their offspring think that what they have done to the rest of the world is justified. There population grew so they should go rape and pillage the rest of the world. Also to say that enslaving people and treating them as a disposable, which is exactly what was done to slaves, until the slave trade was made illegal. Then and only then did slave owners start to actively bred up and perhaps treat up more like an animal than trash. We also know that if as many of the Native people did not die of disease, whites would have slaughtered that many more to gain what they perceived as theirs. Slavery has existed since antiquity. See the Wiki article on the subject. The Europeans were by no means inventors of slavery or colonialism. Asia for example. Slaves almost by definition as property have been considered "subhuman" i.e. inferior to their captors wherever slavery was practiced. To say that the Native peoples would have been slaughtered is to ignore history. The opportunity to kill all the Native peoples was there. They were not killed. They were pushed off of their home lands, brutalized, but they were not eradicated nor enslaved. There is no excuse for their treatment and I do not excuse it here. Had the imported diseases not infected them then no one knows what would have happened. But it is hypothetical sadly and moot. but the original question has not been address, why must we as a people continue to support the jews, I think the jews in this country and those all over the world should take it upon themselves to do that now. the germans still continue to give survivors money. The natives people here are simply a proto type for how the palentinians are treated. Contain and then slowly push them off as much land as possible. sound similar? i did not suggest that you thought africans were the only slaves.  but the idea that Europeans were/are somehow specially "diseased" is silly since slavery is very far from being the sole province of Europeans. the original question is not whether we should "support the jews". it was about how to regard the killing and mistreatment of native americans in comparison to the Holocaust of Jews in WWII. but i will address your new question. the jews should be supported as we would protect any religious minority and US citizens. now Israel is not the same thing as "Jews" of course. Israel is a country and Jews are followers of a religion - Judaism. we support Israel because they are our ally not because of reparations of any sort. the germans do owe reparations to WWII survivors whose possessions were appropriated as their families were killed. those possessions were often well documented and do belong to the families from which they were stolen. the palestinian conflict is in fact a land conflict but nothing like the native american situation. the jews lived on the land in israel - in fact had one of the worlds first documented governments on that land - several thousand years ago. and, jewish people have had a continuous presence there all those thousands of years. when many flocked there to their ancestral homeland to save their own lives during and after WWII, it created a conflict as their numbers became larger and larger in the region. although it is important to recognize that on a map of the region, the contested area of israel is only a tiny fraction of the area occupied by Arabs and Islamic countries all around them. the following map puts it into perspective. http://www.masada2000.org/geography.html there was of course no previous well documented nation of white people several thousand years ago in N America. so there are few parallels. but it's interesting to read the following Q&A of the Arab-Israeli conflict here - for an alternative viewpoint. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/index.html |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
tribo
on
Sun 10/19/08 09:41 PM
|
|
(quotes truncated in the interest of space) You raise an interesting point regarding the ownership of land. (I think it is ironic that what we call “real” property is actually the only type of property that is not real. and that to me is where the mind set is wrong Sky, i appreciate your contributions and respect your opinions on many things. but the mind set is exactly what has to be changed and dealt with both on the matter of first peoples and the african amreicans who didn't ask to be here in the first place as well as others. you talk as if there is ownership of land in reality? no one owns their property here, they just think they do - if they really did mortgage companies could not foreclose and reposeses the properties. ownership is not something that can be given by mans ways. the first people understood this very well. what the first people [or many of them]want is to be allowed to live where they once lived no matter who owns the land by what ever rights they claim to have on its ownership.they wnat lands in the territories they once lived and would settle for any government land that is not used now for its own greedy needs and not inhabited by dwellers. none of the treaties were ever honored in full and most all were changed to suit the europeans needs as they grew. the intentions were to make this a country full of europeans, not to live [as they have elsewhere] in harmony with first people - the tradgedy did not end with the tribes and nations surrendering, it still continues Sky. so does the plight of the Afro-Americans and other injustices - there is no way to forgive and forget when it still exist! that would be like me hitting you in the nose on a daily basis and saying i'm sorry. What can we do? plenty - how bout for starters stopping the billions we send to other countries like israel, and stopping spending on un-necessary wars and imports and using that money to do what is right? how about giving over the lands set aside by the government for preserves to use as indian habitat? and i could go on but unfortunately we are now in the worst recission in my lifetime so i dint know how things will go in the near future to be able to proceed the outline of what could be done and accomplished. ) But to the point, yes, you’ve caught me out in getting sloppy with my language. But neither do I think it’s as black-and-white as you make it out to be. Although the word “ownership” is used, the issue has more to do with “control” than anything else. As you say, one cannot really “own” land. There’s really nothing tangible to own. “Land ownership” is, essentially, permission from the group to control an area. As you say, that permission can be revoked by foreclosures and condemnations and repossessions and other “group sanctioned actions.” So from a purely philosophical viewpoint, I’m not sure what to say about it. Obviously the white man should not have taken over control of the land with no consideration for the current “tenants”. No argument there. But as I said before, when viewed against the entire evolutionary line of mankind across the planet, the only real difference there is a matter of degree and personal involvement. Who pays whom and how much? And who decides? And how do they go about making the decision? And really, the answers to those questions are ultimately political and not religious and I have no faintest inkling of all the factors that would need to be considered in order to make a “fair” decision. Some of your suggestions sound promising and fair to me. I have no argument that the Native Americans and the African Americans (as well as many other ethnic groups) have been, and still are, discriminated against – and that it should stop. But I personally have no idea how to go about doing that other than to educate people when possible and set an example when not. Aside from all that, what I am most confused about is the matter of what you call the “mindset. What exactly is it and how should it be changed? well like i was telling SL, it has to start with the children[see mt reply to her on where to start] i know it cannot be done entirely by this generation but we do have a choice to change the mind set of our children which i worked very hard to do and my son is doing so with his sons so far, it's not easy shy and you correct no one has all the answers not even me but that is what i see as the starting point, teach[by actions] what is right as to viewing all others as equals noe bigotry no looking down on others, no insinuations or slurs, and it will take this generation to provide the next the tools of this if not then it will continue till enough peple will do such. thats all i can say outside of what i told SL on the other post you were in. about how to bring this about ok? -  originally an SL answer sky: HMMM - though i may be able to talk about it philosophically, I'm not sure it would be possible in the world as it was or is or maybe in the future[ yeah i know jb, but this is just a discussion so lay low on there's only the present for awhile OK?] - From the philly view, it would have to begin with what we teach our young [are very young] not as to words but as to actions. in my book " trueness of being" i talk of the family and how children are taught one thing but really learn from watching their parents/peers actions. you can tell someone you love them all day long but if your actions towards them are unloving - which will they eventually believe? love can be used as a noun or a verb, it's truth is found in the verb form not that of it use as a noun. This also holds true of "all" agenda's of mans making. without agenda's there would be no judgement as such - just acceptance - it seems to me the older you get the more aware you are of this. and i believe that is why grandparents make better role models than parents a lot of the time. not always though. they may also be responsible for putting upon them their own agenda's also. But if and when we begin to get rid of showing our true beliefs to our children [those things they hear and see us or others do]then there could be real perceivable changes. as long as there is potential for mimicking there elders, this will not be the case, if the teachers of the children are prejudice, this will become evident to a child in the teachers mannerisms - kids are a lot smarter than thought, they are our mirrors through which we can see ourselves as we rightly should, when we get upset with them its usually a direct refection of things taught to them by observation and behavior of there teachers [parents'peers' etc] and they often don't understand why we get upset when its our own behavior they are reflecting and we don't like that in ourselves to begin with and find it unacceptable in them, yet it should be a wake up call to us that this is something within us that we should address so as not to reflect it upon them. so my take on it is as stated it has to begin first within the teachers, then the children will be able to see clearly what is correct as to being non agendic. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sam, allow me to apologize for not having read this thread in detail. I've just skimmed over it breifly.
However, I do want to say the following, and yes, it's going to be a derogatory statement about Christianity (rightfully SO!) As you point out, while the holocaust by Hitler was atrocious and totally inhumane and uncalled for, it truly isn't any worse that what Christians did in America to both the American Indians and to the Africans that they brought here as slaves. The bottom line is important! Christians historically have no moral values at all! For either their brother, or the land! End of story. The religion historically does not teach morals. I don't care what anyone might claim to the contrary. Some excuses are that the churches just didn't do a good job in teaching the moral values. Personally I think that's an extremely lame excuse for the brutalities that were in many cases even led by the churches! The Witch burnings were also a horrid thing! How many decent loving women were tied to a stake and burnt to death! It's horrible! All in the name of JESUS CHRIST! That religion is disgusting!!! It should be outlawed if only based on it's own hate-filled past. I realize that Jesus himself may not have condoned these things. But that only goes to prove the point! The religion is totally askew and meaningless! Clearly if it can't even convey the moral of the God is supposedly worships then what good is it? I totally and fully denounce the Bible as a hateful religion, if only based on the history of the religious masses who followed it. Clearly there's soemthing terrible wrong with the religion. If there truly was an intervening egotistical God associated with the Bible he would be totally immoral for not blowing the whistle and screaming, "Ok everyone out of the pool!". I mean, it's clear that if the Bible is the word of God that book is so stained with the blood of innocent poeple that no one should touch it with anything other than a well-lit match! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(quotes truncated in the interest of space) You raise an interesting point regarding the ownership of land. (I think it is ironic that what we call “real” property is actually the only type of property that is not real. and that to me is where the mind set is wrong Sky, i appreciate your contributions and respect your opinions on many things. but the mind set is exactly what has to be changed and dealt with both on the matter of first peoples and the african amreicans who didn't ask to be here in the first place as well as others. you talk as if there is ownership of land in reality? no one owns their property here, they just think they do - if they really did mortgage companies could not foreclose and reposeses the properties. ownership is not something that can be given by mans ways. the first people understood this very well. what the first people [or many of them]want is to be allowed to live where they once lived no matter who owns the land by what ever rights they claim to have on its ownership.they wnat lands in the territories they once lived and would settle for any government land that is not used now for its own greedy needs and not inhabited by dwellers. none of the treaties were ever honored in full and most all were changed to suit the europeans needs as they grew. the intentions were to make this a country full of europeans, not to live [as they have elsewhere] in harmony with first people - the tradgedy did not end with the tribes and nations surrendering, it still continues Sky. so does the plight of the Afro-Americans and other injustices - there is no way to forgive and forget when it still exist! that would be like me hitting you in the nose on a daily basis and saying i'm sorry. What can we do? plenty - how bout for starters stopping the billions we send to other countries like israel, and stopping spending on un-necessary wars and imports and using that money to do what is right? how about giving over the lands set aside by the government for preserves to use as indian habitat? and i could go on but unfortunately we are now in the worst recission in my lifetime so i dint know how things will go in the near future to be able to proceed the outline of what could be done and accomplished. ) But to the point, yes, you’ve caught me out in getting sloppy with my language. But neither do I think it’s as black-and-white as you make it out to be. Although the word “ownership” is used, the issue has more to do with “control” than anything else. As you say, one cannot really “own” land. There’s really nothing tangible to own. “Land ownership” is, essentially, permission from the group to control an area. As you say, that permission can be revoked by foreclosures and condemnations and repossessions and other “group sanctioned actions.” So from a purely philosophical viewpoint, I’m not sure what to say about it. Obviously the white man should not have taken over control of the land with no consideration for the current “tenants”. No argument there. But as I said before, when viewed against the entire evolutionary line of mankind across the planet, the only real difference there is a matter of degree and personal involvement. Who pays whom and how much? And who decides? And how do they go about making the decision? And really, the answers to those questions are ultimately political and not religious and I have no faintest inkling of all the factors that would need to be considered in order to make a “fair” decision. Some of your suggestions sound promising and fair to me. I have no argument that the Native Americans and the African Americans (as well as many other ethnic groups) have been, and still are, discriminated against – and that it should stop. But I personally have no idea how to go about doing that other than to educate people when possible and set an example when not. Aside from all that, what I am most confused about is the matter of what you call the “mindset. What exactly is it and how should it be changed? originally an SL answer sky: HMMM - though i may be able to talk about it philosophically, I'm not sure it would be possible in the world as it was or is or maybe in the future[ yeah i know jb, but this is just a discussion so lay low on there's only the present for awhile OK?] - From the philly view, it would have to begin with what we teach our young [are very young] not as to words but as to actions. in my book " trueness of being" i talk of the family and how children are taught one thing but really learn from watching their parents/peers actions. you can tell someone you love them all day long but if your actions towards them are unloving - which will they eventually believe? love can be used as a noun or a verb, it's truth is found in the verb form not that of it use as a noun. This also holds true of "all" agenda's of mans making. without agenda's there would be no judgement as such - just acceptance - it seems to me the older you get the more aware you are of this. and i believe that is why grandparents make better role models than parents a lot of the time. not always though. they may also be responsible for putting upon them their own agenda's also. But if and when we begin to get rid of showing our true beliefs to our children [those things they hear and see us or others do]then there could be real perceivable changes. as long as there is potential for mimicking there elders, this will not be the case, if the teachers of the children are prejudice, this will become evident to a child in the teachers mannerisms - kids are a lot smarter than thought, they are our mirrors through which we can see ourselves as we rightly should, when we get upset with them its usually a direct refection of things taught to them by observation and behavior of there teachers [parents'peers' etc] and they often don't understand why we get upset when its our own behavior they are reflecting and we don't like that in ourselves to begin with and find it unacceptable in them, yet it should be a wake up call to us that this is something within us that we should address so as not to reflect it upon them. so my take on it is as stated it has to begin first within the teachers, then the children will be able to see clearly what is correct as to being non agendic. 'Zat about right? The causes of and remedies for the prejudicial mindset may be open for debate, but I totally agree that the real problem is the prejudicial actions, and the best way to remedy that is to change the prejudicial mindset. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Mon 10/20/08 09:53 AM
|
|
I don't really want to get started on this subject.
But in reading the Urantia Book I found that whoever wrote it (supposedly a non-human entity) portrayed the creators of mankind as gods who have the right to grow and breed populations of humans and also to commit genocide any time they decide that a particular group does not measure up to their standard. These influences (creators) are still practicing this policy on earth today justifying genocide in different ways. You might think it was done only long ago but it continues today. There was a project in force in the previous generation to de-populate Australia of the black aborigines and repopulate the continent with Europeans. This was done during the war. People who could not feed their children place them in custody of Christian (Catholic) orphanages and also homeless children were taken in. These children were then transported to Australia to live in homes (catholic abbeys or orphanages) set up there for them. The parents returned after the war to collect their children and they were told that they had been adopted out and they had no record of where they were. Also, the movie Quiggly down under depicts the effort to kill off the black aborigines in Australia. I am sure many methods were used to kill off a great number of these people so that Australia could be populated with white Europeans. There have also been projects to destroy the native populations of Canada. No need to look to history to find genocide. It is happening today right in plain sight. JB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
it was an awful thing that should have never taken place for sure. But are you aware that over two hundred million native Americans were killed by the united states citizens, the christian men and supposedly civilized European immigrants? Why am i bringing this up? well we see how much aid and help in all areas has been given to the Jewish Israeli nation as of the 40's, now compare this to the way Indians are even treated today by the government - there slaughter was 40 times the amt [give or take] and we continued to break treatise with them and take away the original promised land and even today it is bad, the only hope they have is to open casinos and i hope they use it to take all the white mans money they possibly can, not out of greed but out of recompense they deserve, no offense to the Jews or other peoples slaughter unmercifully, but non compares to what happened here to the first peoples in this ""god worshipping"" country!! The majority of the NA who were killed during the immigration to this country were killed by disease. During that time, nobody knew about germs or how they were spread. The NAs were killed accidentally by diseases that only made the settlers sick. So I would ask you what is your source? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
it was an awful thing that should have never taken place for sure. But are you aware that over two hundred million native Americans were killed by the united states citizens, the christian men and supposedly civilized European immigrants? Why am i bringing this up? well we see how much aid and help in all areas has been given to the Jewish Israeli nation as of the 40's, now compare this to the way Indians are even treated today by the government - there slaughter was 40 times the amt [give or take] and we continued to break treatise with them and take away the original promised land and even today it is bad, the only hope they have is to open casinos and i hope they use it to take all the white mans money they possibly can, not out of greed but out of recompense they deserve, no offense to the Jews or other peoples slaughter unmercifully, but non compares to what happened here to the first peoples in this ""god worshipping"" country!! whatever... Why not aske the Pueblo indian tribes how they feel about the rading indians... Who wiped them out raped their women and stole their crops... so what that a society came along that could replace the one in place. It was the way of the earth when all knowledge did not include the fact the the earth is small. No that we know this... Perhaps we should stop pissing and moaning about who done what to whom... and start living in the reality that we are all in this basket that is the earth... Survival requires a new approach... blame not lest ye be blamed. Live one with the other as we must to survive. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is true. What I don't like is the secrecy in which the current genocide techniques continue.
Once the powers that be gain complete control they will not need all the secrecy. They will simply tell people that their town or race has been chosen for extinction and that they will be humanly be put to death and their souls will be recycled into a better life. Once they can prove this is possible people would just line up to have their heads chopped off. JB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mel Gibson did a great movie called Apocalypto on how Mayan Indians treated smaller Indian tribes before the Europeans came.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypto |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
it was an awful thing that should have never taken place for sure. But are you aware that over two hundred million native Americans were killed by the united states citizens, the christian men and supposedly civilized European immigrants? Why am i bringing this up? well we see how much aid and help in all areas has been given to the Jewish Israeli nation as of the 40's, now compare this to the way Indians are even treated today by the government - there slaughter was 40 times the amt [give or take] and we continued to break treatise with them and take away the original promised land and even today it is bad, the only hope they have is to open casinos and i hope they use it to take all the white mans money they possibly can, not out of greed but out of recompense they deserve, no offense to the Jews or other peoples slaughter unmercifully, but non compares to what happened here to the first peoples in this ""god worshipping"" country!! whatever... Why not aske the Pueblo indian tribes how they feel about the rading indians... Who wiped them out raped their women and stole their crops... so what that a society came along that could replace the one in place. It was the way of the earth when all knowledge did not include the fact the the earth is small. No that we know this... Perhaps we should stop pissing and moaning about who done what to whom... and start living in the reality that we are all in this basket that is the earth... Survival requires a new approach... blame not lest ye be blamed. Live one with the other as we must to survive. Agreed... Placing blame on the wrong of what was done never seems to create a shift in the trend, but rather perpetuates it. Accepting responsibility CAN NOT be forced. It's focusing on positive action that can be taken in the present that creates the shift. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(quotes truncated in the interest of space) You raise an interesting point regarding the ownership of land. (I think it is ironic that what we call “real” property is actually the only type of property that is not real. and that to me is where the mind set is wrong Sky, i appreciate your contributions and respect your opinions on many things. but the mind set is exactly what has to be changed and dealt with both on the matter of first peoples and the african amreicans who didn't ask to be here in the first place as well as others. you talk as if there is ownership of land in reality? no one owns their property here, they just think they do - if they really did mortgage companies could not foreclose and reposeses the properties. ownership is not something that can be given by mans ways. the first people understood this very well. what the first people [or many of them]want is to be allowed to live where they once lived no matter who owns the land by what ever rights they claim to have on its ownership.they wnat lands in the territories they once lived and would settle for any government land that is not used now for its own greedy needs and not inhabited by dwellers. none of the treaties were ever honored in full and most all were changed to suit the europeans needs as they grew. the intentions were to make this a country full of europeans, not to live [as they have elsewhere] in harmony with first people - the tradgedy did not end with the tribes and nations surrendering, it still continues Sky. so does the plight of the Afro-Americans and other injustices - there is no way to forgive and forget when it still exist! that would be like me hitting you in the nose on a daily basis and saying i'm sorry. What can we do? plenty - how bout for starters stopping the billions we send to other countries like israel, and stopping spending on un-necessary wars and imports and using that money to do what is right? how about giving over the lands set aside by the government for preserves to use as indian habitat? and i could go on but unfortunately we are now in the worst recission in my lifetime so i dint know how things will go in the near future to be able to proceed the outline of what could be done and accomplished. ) But to the point, yes, you’ve caught me out in getting sloppy with my language. But neither do I think it’s as black-and-white as you make it out to be. Although the word “ownership” is used, the issue has more to do with “control” than anything else. As you say, one cannot really “own” land. There’s really nothing tangible to own. “Land ownership” is, essentially, permission from the group to control an area. As you say, that permission can be revoked by foreclosures and condemnations and repossessions and other “group sanctioned actions.” So from a purely philosophical viewpoint, I’m not sure what to say about it. Obviously the white man should not have taken over control of the land with no consideration for the current “tenants”. No argument there. But as I said before, when viewed against the entire evolutionary line of mankind across the planet, the only real difference there is a matter of degree and personal involvement. Who pays whom and how much? And who decides? And how do they go about making the decision? And really, the answers to those questions are ultimately political and not religious and I have no faintest inkling of all the factors that would need to be considered in order to make a “fair” decision. Some of your suggestions sound promising and fair to me. I have no argument that the Native Americans and the African Americans (as well as many other ethnic groups) have been, and still are, discriminated against – and that it should stop. But I personally have no idea how to go about doing that other than to educate people when possible and set an example when not. Aside from all that, what I am most confused about is the matter of what you call the “mindset. What exactly is it and how should it be changed? originally an SL answer sky: HMMM - though i may be able to talk about it philosophically, I'm not sure it would be possible in the world as it was or is or maybe in the future[ yeah i know jb, but this is just a discussion so lay low on there's only the present for awhile OK?] - From the philly view, it would have to begin with what we teach our young [are very young] not as to words but as to actions. in my book " trueness of being" i talk of the family and how children are taught one thing but really learn from watching their parents/peers actions. you can tell someone you love them all day long but if your actions towards them are unloving - which will they eventually believe? love can be used as a noun or a verb, it's truth is found in the verb form not that of it use as a noun. This also holds true of "all" agenda's of mans making. without agenda's there would be no judgement as such - just acceptance - it seems to me the older you get the more aware you are of this. and i believe that is why grandparents make better role models than parents a lot of the time. not always though. they may also be responsible for putting upon them their own agenda's also. But if and when we begin to get rid of showing our true beliefs to our children [those things they hear and see us or others do]then there could be real perceivable changes. as long as there is potential for mimicking there elders, this will not be the case, if the teachers of the children are prejudice, this will become evident to a child in the teachers mannerisms - kids are a lot smarter than thought, they are our mirrors through which we can see ourselves as we rightly should, when we get upset with them its usually a direct refection of things taught to them by observation and behavior of there teachers [parents'peers' etc] and they often don't understand why we get upset when its our own behavior they are reflecting and we don't like that in ourselves to begin with and find it unacceptable in them, yet it should be a wake up call to us that this is something within us that we should address so as not to reflect it upon them. so my take on it is as stated it has to begin first within the teachers, then the children will be able to see clearly what is correct as to being non agendic. 'Zat about right? The causes of and remedies for the prejudicial mindset may be open for debate, but I totally agree that the real problem is the prejudicial actions, and the best way to remedy that is to change the prejudicial mindset. i'm saying that if we teach just the opposite to our youth from a very young age that we are all equal no matter what, that their is a good chance to change the mind set. i saw it and see it in my own son and his sons and it is intellectually rewarding as well as heart warming. may they become what is necessary to do what i suggest. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
it was an awful thing that should have never taken place for sure. But are you aware that over two hundred million native Americans were killed by the united states citizens, the christian men and supposedly civilized European immigrants? Why am i bringing this up? well we see how much aid and help in all areas has been given to the Jewish Israeli nation as of the 40's, now compare this to the way Indians are even treated today by the government - there slaughter was 40 times the amt [give or take] and we continued to break treatise with them and take away the original promised land and even today it is bad, the only hope they have is to open casinos and i hope they use it to take all the white mans money they possibly can, not out of greed but out of recompense they deserve, no offense to the Jews or other peoples slaughter unmercifully, but non compares to what happened here to the first peoples in this ""god worshipping"" country!! The majority of the NA who were killed during the immigration to this country were killed by disease. During that time, nobody knew about germs or how they were spread. The NAs were killed accidentally by diseases that only made the settlers sick. So I would ask you what is your source? my sources are indian historians and present day facts as you can see on this site: google: first nations/firstpeoples issues |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
it was an awful thing that should have never taken place for sure. But are you aware that over two hundred million native Americans were killed by the united states citizens, the christian men and supposedly civilized European immigrants? Why am i bringing this up? well we see how much aid and help in all areas has been given to the Jewish Israeli nation as of the 40's, now compare this to the way Indians are even treated today by the government - there slaughter was 40 times the amt [give or take] and we continued to break treatise with them and take away the original promised land and even today it is bad, the only hope they have is to open casinos and i hope they use it to take all the white mans money they possibly can, not out of greed but out of recompense they deserve, no offense to the Jews or other peoples slaughter unmercifully, but non compares to what happened here to the first peoples in this ""god worshipping"" country!! whatever... Why not aske the Pueblo indian tribes how they feel about the rading indians... Who wiped them out raped their women and stole their crops... so what that a society came along that could replace the one in place. It was the way of the earth when all knowledge did not include the fact the the earth is small. No that we know this... Perhaps we should stop pissing and moaning about who done what to whom... and start living in the reality that we are all in this basket that is the earth... Survival requires a new approach... blame not lest ye be blamed. Live one with the other as we must to survive. wonderful words AB, heard them all my life - never see them bieng acted upon - YOU? owrds donot get anything accomplished as you know otherwise things would be as you say. all those who speak these words will pass away and morality wil remain as it has from the beginning - unchanging. selfishness rules even in the wisest of man. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
my sources are indian historians and present day facts as you can see on this site: google: first nations/firstpeoples issues Yeah, that's not a biased site at all. They seem openly proud that Indian Country Today has deemed them to be an unreliable source, because of their "continued proliferation of gossip, rumor and innuendo in their misguided attempt to support American Indian issues". Come back when you have a legitimate source, instead of just trying to smear Christians with gossip, rumor and innuendo. |
|
|
|
|
