White Guilt Is Dead

Page 3 of 3 First 123

  1. Quote Originally Posted by RobInKuwait View Post
    No, based on the context I'm guessing its saying one thing and writing a disclaimer that that is not what you are saying?
    No, that is a Non Sequitor. Essentially, though, you committed that one as well! It means: You Too? And is an invalid argumentative form based on hypocrisy - i.e., What I have done is not wrong because others (you) have committed the same act. However, this does nothing to deny the true premises of the argument and is nothing more than a crafty diversion.

    Insofar as end result that's true. While its true much of that was intentional, the size and scope of the smallpox epidemics were not intentional. I would most definitely not call that a unified effort. You could not say that Cortez and Custer worked together to achieve a common goal.

    Nazi Germany was a deliberate intentional act of ethnic extermination on a large scale, as was Rwanda.
    How certain are you that the Indigene decimation was not deliberate? You seem fairly so - I disagree. The elimination of 90% of any population does not occur inadvertently, and I would assume you agree. Indigene populations of N.A., were as clearly distinguished as barbarians from the 'civilized' occupying nations as any other colonized populations were. Here is a small excerpt that more or less directly contradicts your point:

    With a barbarous nation peace is the exceptional condition. On the border between civilization and barbarism war is generally normal because it must be under the conditions of barbarism. Whether the barbarian be the Red Indian on the frontier of the United States, the Afghan on the border of British India, or the Turkoman who confronts the Siberian Cossack, the result is the same. In the long run civilized man finds he can keep the peace only by subduing his barbarian neighbor; for the barbarian will yield only to force, save in instances so exceptional that they may be disregarded. Back of the force must come fair dealing, if the peace is to be permanent. But without force fair dealing usually amounts to nothing. In our history we have had more trouble from the Indian tribes whom we pampered and petted than from those we wronged...

    That the barbarians receded or are conquered, with the attendant fact that peace follows their retrogression or conquest is due solely to the power of the mighty civilized races which have not lost the fighting instinct, and which by their expansion are gradually bringing peace to the red wastes where the barbarians of this world hold sway.
    That is from Theodore Roosevelt's The Strenuous Life, and the aptly named chapter: Peace and Expansion.

    There are other quotes from many 'settlers' that allude to deliberate infection and so forth but, I have a feeling they would not sway your opinion.


  2. Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier View Post
    No, that is a Non Sequitor. Essentially, though, you committed that one as well! It means: You Too? And is an invalid argumentative form based on hypocrisy - i.e., What I have done is not wrong because others (you) have committed the same act. However, this does nothing to deny the true premises of the argument and is nothing more than a crafty diversion.



    How certain are you that the Indigene decimation was not deliberate? You seem fairly so - I disagree. The elimination of 90% of any population does not occur inadvertently, and I would assume you agree. Indigene populations of N.A., were as clearly distinguished as barbarians from the 'civilized' occupying nations as any other colonized populations were. Here is a small excerpt that more or less directly contradicts your point:



    That is from Theodore Roosevelt's The Strenuous Life, and the aptly named chapter: Peace and Expansion.

    There are other quotes from many 'settlers' that allude to deliberate infection and so forth but, I have a feeling they would not sway your opinion.
    Keep in mind, TR said this in the early 20th century, when America's course of action towards Natives had been decided for many years. Each president and each country has had a totally different policy for dealing with the "Indian Problem". Jefferson sent Lewis and Clark westward to liason with Natives and had them invite all the chiefs they met to a dinner at the White House. Based upon what I've read I don't think he did that based on any malicious intent, but to foster a relationship of trade and diplomacy.

    I don't think it was a systematic, deliberate hatred that spurred their demise, but the fact that they just wanted the Natives to be NIMBY.

    Don't misunderstand what I am saying, on a grandiose scale, the treatment of the Natives was worse. I just take issue with the idea that they were systematically destroyed rather than haphazardly destroyed.
    •   
       


  3. Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier View Post
    No, that is a Non Sequitor. Essentially, though, you committed that one as well! It means: You Too? And is an invalid argumentative form based on hypocrisy - i.e., What I have done is not wrong because others (you) have committed the same act. However, this does nothing to deny the true premises of the argument and is nothing more than a crafty diversion.
    I'm all about breaking the rules of proper debate!

  4. Quote Originally Posted by RobInKuwait View Post
    I don't think it was a systematic, deliberate hatred that spurred their demise, but the fact that they just wanted the Natives to be NIMBY
    .

    I think most attitudes during that Western-Settlement period from pioneers, to elected officials alike were deliberately malicious.

    Don't misunderstand what I am saying, on a grandiose scale, the treatment of the Natives was worse. I just take issue with the idea that they were systematically destroyed rather than haphazardly destroyed.
    Inadvertent decimation of anywhere from 80-95% (80 is the most conservative number, in fact) is a very, very difficult thing to achieve. I will agree that, ostensibly, this Ethnocide was not carried out with the centrally planned and organized fashion of the German Holocaust; however, to say it was not deliberate, in my opinion, is incorrect.

  5. Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier View Post
    I think most attitudes during that Western-Settlement period from pioneers, to elected officials alike were deliberately malicious
    True.

    Inadvertent decimation of anywhere from 80-95% (80 is the most conservative number, in fact) is a very, very difficult thing to achieve. I will agree that, ostensibly, this Ethnocide was not carried out with the centrally planned and organized fashion of the German Holocaust; however, to say it was not deliberate, in my opinion, is incorrect.
    I agree, you can't say it wasn't deliberate. I'll buy that the ethnocide of the Native Americans was decentralized vs the Holocaust being centralized.

  6. Quote Originally Posted by RobInKuwait View Post
    True.



    I agree, you can't say it wasn't deliberate. I'll buy that the ethnocide of the Native Americans was decentralized vs the Holocaust being centralized.
    Agreed. Now let's touch pee-pees and/or hoo-has (as I am unsure what you are packin').


  7. Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier View Post
    Agreed. Now let's touch pee-pees and/or hoo-has (as I am unsure what you are packin').

    Is it bad that I googled and wikied hoo-has just out of habit when you wrote that? I am so used to looking up any word you use that I don't recognize.

  8. Quote Originally Posted by RobInKuwait View Post
    Do you mean the worst treated minority in the history of America? You really think African-Americans beat out Native Americans?
    Yes. Native Americans, at least, got tax-free status, free education and casinos. Not an even-trade by any standards but at least they got that. We, begrudgingly, got Affirmative Action but I've yet to actually meet anyone that has benefitted from it. All I ever hear is "My friend's dad got screwed out of a job...blah, blah, blah..." Affirmative Action, in my opinion, is on par with Sasquatch sightings.

  9. Quote Originally Posted by Bionic View Post
    Yes. Native Americans, at least, got tax-free status, free education and casinos. Not an even-trade by any standards but at least they got that. We, begrudgingly, got Affirmative Action but I've yet to actually meet anyone that has benefitted from it. All I ever hear is "My friend's dad got screwed out of a job...blah, blah, blah..." Affirmative Action, in my opinion, is on par with Sasquatch sightings.
    They also got: disproportionately high incarceration rates, domestic abuse rates, molestation rates, substance abuse rates, suicide rates, dropout rates, unemployment rates, incredibly high dependency on social assistance/welfare rates, incidences of IDDM and NIDDM (some dependent on alcoholism, others genetic), a whole slew of former legislation banning them from speaking their language, practicing their heritage, and voting (these were rebuked at differing periods), and, to top it off, 2 to 10 times the probability of contracting HIV/AIDS and a host of other STDs.

  10. Agreed but other than the genetic anamolies that exist in both races, the plights/blights seems quite similar although proportionally higher. The point I was trying to make was that, at the very least, they were given some things whereas others were not.
    •   
       


  11. Quote Originally Posted by Bionic View Post
    Yes. Native Americans, at least, got tax-free status, free education and casinos. Not an even-trade by any standards but at least they got that. We, begrudgingly, got Affirmative Action but I've yet to actually meet anyone that has benefitted from it. All I ever hear is "My friend's dad got screwed out of a job...blah, blah, blah..." Affirmative Action, in my opinion, is on par with Sasquatch sightings.
    What are you proposing, African-American reservations?

    Justifications for welfare, medicaid, and subprime loans was the disproportionately high number of poor African-Americans. The unintended consequences from subprime loans was the current state of the economy. From welfare came endless cycle of drug abuse, poverty, and breakdown of family structure in the inner city. From medicaid came higher medical costs for everyone who pays for insurance.

    The US has been extremely proactive in attempting to deal with perceived "social injustices" in poor, inner city African-Americans, over the past 50 years. However, every time the government steps in to try to fix the problem, it makes the problem worse. At some point, government has to take a step back and let the problem fix itself, if it expects the situation to ever change.

  12. Black reservations? No. Black reparations? YES! Ha! I'm not proposing anything. You asked a question and I gave an answer.

  13. Quote Originally Posted by MrTexas1982 View Post
    How about the history of America, since this thread is specifically speaking of events that happened in America?
    IMO, treatment of our own aborigines (the "Indians") was far worse than the fate of imported Africans - slaves, after all, were expensive production machinery & had to be at least minimally well-cared-for (no need to catalog the exceptions in this context).

    By contrast, "the only good Indian is a dead Indian" was not snark - it was policy; a policy carried out spontaneously in "incidents" between the two races for about 100 years.

    Once we'd finished conquering them, our treatment of the wretched survivors was / is comparable to our treatment of blacks from "Restoration" on.

  14. Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier View Post
    How certain are you that the Indigene decimation was not deliberate? You seem fairly so - I disagree. The elimination of 90% of any population does not occur inadvertently, and I would assume you agree.
    "I do not thin' it means, what you thin' it means."

    "Decimation" is to reduce BY one-tenth.

    "Reduction" is to reduce TO one-tenth. It was common for the Romans to 'reduce' a conquered population - that is, kill 90%, and sell the rest off as slaves, and let them spread the word of what happened to their people. While the surviving "Indigenes" (nice word) were not enslaved per se, it's arguable that the end-result was indistinguishable: every aboriginal individual by every existence stands to remind us all what happened to a whole people when we chose replacement over co-existence.

    Same basic message: don't screw w/ these guys - they sum bad assets!

  15. Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier View Post
    No, that is a Non Sequitor. Essentially, though, you committed that one as well! It means: You Too? And is an invalid argumentative form based on hypocrisy - i.e., What I have done is not wrong because others (you) have committed the same act. However, this does nothing to deny the true premises of the argument and is nothing more than a crafty diversion.
    So, if I'm understanding you, this would sum-up nicely in this formulation:

    Everyone is guilty of something, therefore no one can really be held accountable for anything; in particular, I can't be held responsible for _______.

    About like that?

  16. Quote Originally Posted by BodyWizard View Post
    "I do not thin' it means, what you thin' it means."

    "Decimation" is to reduce BY one-tenth.

    "Reduction" is to reduce TO one-tenth. It was common for the Romans to 'reduce' a conquered population - that is, kill 90%, and sell the rest off as slaves, and let them spread the word of what happened to their people. While the surviving "Indigenes" (nice word) were not enslaved per se, it's arguable that the end-result was indistinguishable: every aboriginal individual by every existence stands to remind us all what happened to a whole people when we chose replacement over co-existence.

    Same basic message: don't screw w/ these guys - they sum bad assets!
    Actually, BW, if you choose to be this literal, to decimate means to choose every tenth in a lot, not to reduce to a tenth. However, in the colloquial sense I used it, it merely means to substantially reduce the numbers of any one population, not strictly quantitatively defined therein. As you mentioned, the Roman punishment tactic was meant to instill fear by eliminating every tenth soldier, not to reduce their numbers to one tenth.

    So, no, I do not think it means what you think it means.

    dec⋅i⋅mate   [des-uh-meyt] Show IPA Pronunciation

    –verb (used with object), -mat⋅ed, -mat⋅ing.
    1. to destroy a great number or proportion of: The population was decimated by a plague.

    2. to select by lot and kill every tenth person of.




    EDIT: I misread your initial post, but my point still stands.

  17. Quote Originally Posted by BodyWizard View Post
    So, if I'm understanding you, this would sum-up nicely in this formulation:

    Everyone is guilty of something, therefore no one can really be held accountable for anything; in particular, I can't be held responsible for _______.

    About like that?
    That would be the fallacy, correct. It is very easily identifiable as an argumentative tactic. However, if one assumes that a successful counterposition is the negation of the original arguer's premises, than this particular form is invalid.

  18. Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier View Post
    dec⋅i⋅mate   [des-uh-meyt] Show IPA Pronunciation

    –verb (used with object), -mat⋅ed, -mat⋅ing.
    1. to destroy a great number or proportion of: The population was decimated by a plague.

    2. to select by lot and kill every tenth person of.




    EDIT: I misread your initial post, but my point still stands.
    No sweat, bro - and I'm not wanting to invalidate the colloquial use; just felt it was understating the enormity....

  19. Quote Originally Posted by BodyWizard View Post
    No sweat, bro - and I'm not wanting to invalidate the colloquial use; just felt it was understating the enormity....
    Ah, I see. Well, I am not sure one can understate an attrition rate of 80% by the most conservative mean, and 95% for a higher range!

    As well, I feel the North American Indigene are still widely marginalized within popular culture, and their entire sense of entitlement is openly trivialized. You will never see a professional sports team named "The N******", or see plastic figurines of an African-slave in chains being sold on the side of the highway. Both cultures suffered irreparable harm but, at least in my opinion, the harm is still being trivialized in respects to the North American indigenous population.

    For example, the Canadian Historical Society often runs advertisements lauding Canada as a nation of two founding countries: England, and France. Somewhere within that marketing room they must have been experiencing a massive bout of cognitive dissonance in not recognizing there were inhabitants of Canada prior to the French/English!

  20. Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier View Post
    Ah, I see. Well, I am not sure one can understate an attrition rate of 80% by the most conservative mean, and 95% for a higher range!

    As well, I feel the North American Indigene are still widely marginalized within popular culture, and their entire sense of entitlement is openly trivialized. You will never see a professional sports team named "The N******", or see plastic figurines of an African-slave in chains being sold on the side of the highway. Both cultures suffered irreparable harm but, at least in my opinion, the harm is still being trivialized in respects to the North American indigenous population.

    For example, the Canadian Historical Society often runs advertisements lauding Canada as a nation of two founding countries: England, and France. Somewhere within that marketing room they must have been experiencing a massive bout of cognitive dissonance in not recognizing there were inhabitants of Canada prior to the French/English!
    Couldn't agree more.

  21. Damn it, Mullet entered the damn thread and now I have to go research all his replies to figure he's basically saying, "**** off you ****, you're an idiot!" :P

  22. "white guilt"
    the semitic-correct promotion of white self-hate.

    "Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white."

    You do realize that much of the media, television included, is owned by Jewish people?
    If you don't kill your televitz,
    it certainly will kill your children.
  

  
 

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Drs sued in CT, and admit guilt; lyme disease
    By spinn in forum Male Anti-Aging Medicine
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 12-29-2009, 06:29 PM
  2. Replies: 88
    Last Post: 10-29-2009, 06:48 PM
  3. Controlled Labs White Flood White Raspberry Tester Thread!
    By Dracoy in forum Company Promotions
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 10-15-2009, 02:46 AM
  4. Barry White Dead at Age 58
    By YellowJacket in forum General Chat
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-06-2003, 11:38 PM
Log in
Log in