 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 19:04:19 -0600, somebody wrote:
> And had native Americans were willing and able to protect their land and
> prevent conquest and immigration, maybe the world would be a better
> place now. It's pointless to argue what ifs, but it should help convince
> you that whatever happened in the past (immigration included) need not
> have been the "right" thing.
Are you saying the native Americans weren't willing to fight to protect
their land, or didn't try? Because if you are, perhaps you should read
some early American history.
>> What you seem to be saying is that since we can't do anything about the
>> past, we should just forget that it happened and not learn from it.
>
> No. I'm saying we should base today's decisions on present
> circumstances, not past circumstances. Just because people immigrated in
> the past in large numbers to their present locations, we cannot assume
> immigration is always desirable. There's no hypocricy in realising what
> worked in the past may not work now (or vice versa).
I don't disagree with that, but at the same time, people need to realise
that they're not *native* Americans, everyone came from somewhere. Unless
you're descended from actual Native American tribes, you really have no
more claim on this land than anyone else.
>> I don't have that luxury - and remember that those who fail to learn
>> from history are doomed to repeat it.
>
> Learning is one thing. Making present decisions based on historical data
> or pretext is something entirely different.
No, making decisions based on historical *and* current data is the wise
thing to do. You can't make a good decision based solely on historical
data, and I would argue that you also can't make a good decision based on
a total lack of historical understanding.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Are you saying the native Americans weren't willing to fight to protect
> their land, or didn't try? Because if you are, perhaps you should read
> some early American history.
Before horses and metal weapons, they were really pretty helpless.
Something like 100 Conquestadors wiped out 10,000 south american
natives, because the swords went right through the reed "armor", the
horses could run down anyone who might be running to get reinforcements,
and the metal armor was immune to the clubs they natives had.
It's a pretty fascinating story, if you track it down.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 20:33:31 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Are you saying the native Americans weren't willing to fight to protect
>> their land, or didn't try? Because if you are, perhaps you should read
>> some early American history.
>
> Before horses and metal weapons, they were really pretty helpless.
> Something like 100 Conquestadors wiped out 10,000 south american
> natives, because the swords went right through the reed "armor", the
> horses could run down anyone who might be running to get reinforcements,
> and the metal armor was immune to the clubs they natives had.
>
> It's a pretty fascinating story, if you track it down.
Yep, living in Utah, we have a holiday called "Pioneer Day", which for
the non-Native Americans is a pretty big deal. For the Native Americans
who live out here, it's been a day of mourning.
But yes, they didn't really stand a chance because of the technological
differences - that doesn't mean they didn't try or that they weren't
willing to do so.
Of course, European conquest in general is a pretty bloody history.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> Somebody sent me a text message that ended with "this message is not
> available in arabic, [...] or any other **** immigrant tongue!"
>
> I just found it interesting that "immigrant" is basically a Latin word,
> brought to us from Italy when the Romans invaded Britan. And "tongue" is
> from an old German language, from when they invided Britan.
>
> In fact, you know what? Basically "our" entire language was created by
> these hated "immigrants". So next time you curse them, just remember
> that the words you're using to do it with are words THEY INVENTED!
>
> Irony, much?
>
> --
> http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
> http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
It's a funny separation of "immigrants" and "natives".
Especially when we take a look at human DNA.
Have you known, that all humans have one single RNA-strand, which marks them as
relatives?
Scientists are able to understand the early migrations of human populations from
Africa to the North because of this molecular biological fact. ;)
A question I couldn't answer myself: If we all spring from a single tribe of a
few homo sapiens, why do we have such a great gene pool? Wouldn't it be the
same as with clones, that there will be one time, when all humans have similar
genes and cannot reproduce?
Or that humans get a lots of diseases, because they lack of beautiful mutations
or "new blood"?
Regards
bluetree
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> wrote:
> Correct; but one thing is disagreeing with immigration, and another is
> racism...
Most multuculturalists seem to equate the two things.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
480fc20a@news.povray.org...
>He's not responsible for what his ancestors did or didn't.
Have you ever noticed that people who claim full glory and responsibility
about the wonderful stuff their ancestors did are often the same who
suddenly claim to have neither shame or responsibility about the horrible
stuff the same ancestors did?
It goes like this :
- Your grandpa's stepfather's cousin invented the nail clipper
- Wow, WE invented the nail clipper in MY family! WE're the greatest family
that ever lived. I'm so proud to be part of that family, to live in the land
that invented the nail clipper and to breathe the air that went through the
lungs of people who invented the nail clipper. No other civilization could
invent the nail clipper! It's in MY genes!
- He made a bundle of money out of it and paid for the family mansion you're
still living in
- WE are a hard-working family and I deserve every single cent from all this
hard work!
- Your grandpa traded slaves and committed genocide
- Not my fault! I wasn't even born! Why should I care?
- He made a bundle of money out of it and paid for the family mansion you're
still living in
- Not my fault! I wasn't even born! Why should I care?
G.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I found this opinion on the subject interesting:
http://ars.userfriendly.org/news/?id=1208466459
On a related note, the prime minister of Sweden bragged some time ago
about how many hundreds of different languages are spoken in Sweden, that
all those languages have a great potential.
I have the feeling that most multiculturalists seem to have this
utopistic (and naive) notion that the more the languages in some place,
the merrier. That it's a richness if there are people speaking different
languages.
I fail to see how this is a good thing. Even if all those people understood
and spoke fluently the official language of the country (which many of them
usually don't), I still fail to see the benefits of so many languages. On
the contrary, too many people speaking too many different languages and
not understanding each other only causes problems, monetary problems (which
are usually paid by taxpayers) not being the least of them.
One may argue that people have the *basic right* to their own language,
to preserve it and to use it, and nobody has the right to force them to
use another language, that it's part of basic human rights. That's fine,
but that's not my point. My point is that most multiculturalists seem to
believe that it's *beneficial* the more the languages are spoken in a
given community. Beneficial to who, and how exactly?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 19:11:06 -0400, Warp wrote:
> > The history of a person started when he was born.
> Gads, I smell another semantic battle coming up here, so I'll bow out.
No, it's not about semantics.
You claim that a person's history consists of his ancestors' history
besides his own life. I disagree. Why should it have any effect on your
actions what your ancestors did or didn't do? Why should your own
ancestors' actions have more effect on yours than the actions of someone
else's ancestors?
And in this thread in particular: Why should the social status (in this
case being an immigrant) of your distant ancestors have any effect on your
own social status or your opinions? You are not your ancestors. You are
not what they were. You are you, and what you are depends only on what
you have done.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran <gil### [at] agroparistechfr> wrote:
> "Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> a ?crit dans le message de news:
> 480fc20a@news.povray.org...
> >He's not responsible for what his ancestors did or didn't.
> Have you ever noticed that people who claim full glory and responsibility
> about the wonderful stuff their ancestors did are often the same who
> suddenly claim to have neither shame or responsibility about the horrible
> stuff the same ancestors did?
That may be, but I was just expressing *my* opinion above. It might not
be the same as the average opinion of people.
I can honestly say that I wouldn't take any credit of anything my
ancestors have made, be them great or horrible. I only take credit of
things I have done personally. (And no, this is not something I decided
because of this thread. I'm absolutely sure that if I was asked about this
in the past, I would have answered like this.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
48105b19@news.povray.org...
> Gilles Tran <gil### [at] agroparistechfr> wrote:
>> "Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> a ?crit dans le message de news:
>> 480fc20a@news.povray.org...
> That may be, but I was just expressing *my* opinion above. It might not
> be the same as the average opinion of people.
The problem being that in countries where such debates are common, this is
not just the average opinion of people but part of the political platform
for the extreme or no so extreme conservative/right-wing parties that
eventually shape actual policies: taking all the credit for the good things
and "Who, me?" denial for the unsavory stuff, typically acts of genocide,
slavery and colonization that are still an everyday burden for the victims'
descendants. The denial can go even further: in France, the ruling
conservative party just tried to push the idea that colonization was a jolly
good thing after all, too bad the uppity natives didn't like it so we had to
kill thousands of them.
You can somehow see that in sport supporters. When their team wins it's
"their" win and "their" victory - even though they're just a bunch of couch
potatoes - but when it looses it's everybody else's fault but theirs.
G.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
