Now here is someone I can agree with.

Where have I said I agreed with or sanitized what our ancestors did? In fact, where have I said anything? I've ask you a series of question to clarify what I believe your position is and that's all I've done so far.

From what I've gathered, I get the impression that you feel American Indians were entitled to ALL of the land in America because they were here first and you find ALL native Americans harmless in our history from Columbus forward.

While not ignoring or accepting what my white ancestors did from 1500 through the late 19th century (that is the time frame that is generally accepted that the Indian wars ended), I don't believe Native Americans were entitled to all of the land here nor did many of those tribes. Their view was that no one owned those lands but they were for the use of the current inhabitants and that as good Stewarts, we were to leave the land as we found it.

Nor do I find Native Americans innocent. As OC has pointed out, many of the actions Europeans did and were accused of, Native American tribes did to each other throughout history. The killed, robbed, tortured and attempted to completely obliterate from the face of the earth other tribes long before the white man got here.

I also don’t accept your premise that the white man was always the aggressor invaders. There were many white settlements who were perfectly content to live side by side with Native Americans only to be attacked by the Indians because they were white.

The actions of the United States Government in the 19th century was as much a response to the actions of various Native American tribes as it was as that of an ‘aggressor invader’ hell bent on obliterating Indians from the face of the earth.

That’s not me ignoring, sanitizing or sugarcoating our history. That is simply how it was and imho, for you to place ALL of the blame on the white man is wrong but I doubt I’ll change your mind which considering that is not my intention, it really doesn't matter. But I will not agree with you because if the above is your beliefs as I understand them to be, both history and logic say that you are incorrect.

ziggy wrote:

Cato wrote:And again, I am not sanitizing what our ancestors did. I am saying we have the benefits we have because of what they did. I am saying I am unwilling to trash what we have simply because I don't agree with my ancestors activities.

If you don't agree with their activities, then why- as you said only a couple days ago- then why would you say that "I'm glad our ancestors did what they did" and hope that if they had it to do over again that they would do it again?

Cato wrote:Hell yes, I'm glad our ancestors did what they did. I admire them for the courage it took and for the benefits I have reaped because what they did. If they had it to do over I would certianly hope they would do it again.

Because, I enjoy the benefits of their actions.

Aaron wrote:Where have I said I agreed with or sanitized what our ancestors did? In fact, where have I said anything?

And I have not said, nor even suggested, that you did.

I've ask you a series of question to clarify what I believe your position is and that's all I've done so far. From what I've gathered, I get the impression that you feel American Indians were entitled to ALL of the land in America because they were here first and you find ALL native Americans harmless in our history from Columbus forward.

I think they had more entitlement to it than did the invading Europeans.

While not ignoring or accepting what my white ancestors did from 1500 through the late 19th century (that is the time frame that is generally accepted that the Indian wars ended), I don't believe Native Americans were entitled to all of the land here nor did many of those tribes. Their view was that no one owned those lands but they were for the use of the current inhabitants and that as good Stewarts, we were to leave the land as we found it.

But that was not what not what the conquering European invaders wanted, long term. The view of non-ownership of the lands was contrary to European tradition, and to the demonstrated endless expansion of the "frontier" westward. They wanted to "own" and control the land- to the exclusion of others to use it contrary to what that ownership and control meant to the invading Europeans and their railroad and other enterprises based in private ownership of land and other property.

Nor do I find Native Americans innocent. As OC has pointed out, many of the actions Europeans did and were accused of, Native American tribes did to each other throughout history. The killed, robbed, tortured and attempted to completely obliterate from the face of the earth other tribes long before the white man got here.

Of what concern should that be to the Europeans invaders? That does not in any way excuse the violent conduct of the Europeans toward the native Amerindians. Either way, it was not the European's land from which to decide to evict the historic users of the lands just because they might have been as barbaric as the European invaders themselves became in pursuit of their domination of the land.

I also don’t accept your premise that the white man was always the aggressor invaders. There were many white settlements who were perfectly content to live side by side with Native Americans only to be attacked by the Indians because they were white.

But that was contrary to what the Native Americans wanted on lands that had historically been under their control. When one usurps what belongs to others, one takes the risk of violent repraisal for that theft. The response of those squatter settlements should have been to abandon the land and let the Native Americans have their traditional use of it.

The actions of the United States Government in the 19th century was as much a response to the actions of various Native American tribes as it was as that of an ‘aggressor invader’ hell bent on obliterating Indians from the face of the earth.

No, I disagree. The actions of the U.S. government were to exercise its claims to the lands of the Native Americans- and to do so with whatever degree of militancy it might take to enforce that purpose. Again, if all the U.S. Government was doing was responding to the actions of Native American tribes, the response should have been to withdraw and stop claiming those lands to which the "U.S. Government" had less entitlement than did the Native Americans.

That’s not me ignoring, sanitizing or sugarcoating our history.

Again, I never said it was. You are just stating your opinion- which I presume you arrived at from your honest consideration of the history you have read.

That is simply how it was and imho, for you to place ALL of the blame on the white man is wrong but I doubt I’ll change your mind which considering that is not my intention, it really doesn't matter. But I will not agree with you because if the above is your beliefs as I understand them to be, both history and logic say that you are incorrect.

I am not asking nor expecting you nor anyone else to agree with me. I am just expressing the opinion that if the only reason for the U.S. Government to make war against the Native Americans was so that Cato can smugly sit here today and say that he is glad of what they did because he "enjoys the benefits of their actions", then that is insufficient justification for annihilation the Amerindian culture as it existed in the 16th, 17, 18th & 19th centuries.

White Europeans of the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries were just as entitled to live on the lands they did, many of which were purchased from Asian nomadic tribes, as Asian immigrants were. You speak as if this 'invading force' landed at a specific time and immediately began war with Indians to obliterate them and that's just not the case.

It is a process that evolved over 500 years, required aggression on both parts and your excusing the actions of one over another isn't logical, especially since you don't know the history of the Amerindians of those centuries and how they came to be.

It's also a process that involved with different groups of indigenous people waging wars against one another for centuries that led to the Indian tribes Columbus found along the eastern seaboard of the central north America.

For you to claim they were more entitled to the land or to say their acts of savagery and war against those of European decent was acceptable because they were here first would equate to justification to Americans or Australians treating Muslims in the same manner today for the same reason, they were here first. And in doing so, you are agreeing with Cato, who is agreeing with Prime Minister Kevin Rudd of Australia.

Congratulations Ziggy, you and Cato see eye to eye.

That has been the point of my posts here all along- that Cato (who says "As far as the muslim world goes, I don't give a tinkers damn about them.) can expect that Muslims will eventually become as ruthless in their zeal to change the western world to their purposes as white Europeans and the U.S. government was 2, 3 and 4 centuries ago. And, to be sure, today's god of Islam is a hell of a lot more militant than that of today's Christians. I think that Cato and most other Americans would be well advised to give more than a "tinkers damn" about the Islamic agenda to either convert or eradicate the infidels.

ziggy wrote:That has been the point of my posts here all along- that Cato (who says "As far as the muslim world goes, I don't give a tinkers damn about them.) can expect that Muslims will eventually become as ruthless in their zeal to change the western world to their purposes as white Europeans and the U.S. government was 2, 3 and 4 centuries ago. And, to be sure, today's god of Islam is a hell of a lot more militant than that of today's Christians. I think that Cato and most other Americans would be well advised to give more than a "tinkers damn" about the Islamic agenda to either convert or eradicate the infidels.

Muslims will eventually become ruthless? I know 3,000 people who beg to disagree. They have already become ruthless. In fact, like it or not we are in a war with the muslim world and have been so for years, that is why I agree with what Mr. Rudd said. We can argue about what caused the war until the cows come home, but in reality that would accomplish nothing. We are where we are. Mr Rudd, sets the tone we shoudl be setting. If you want to live here fine, but you are not coming here and use our liberty to destory us and our way of life.

Only 3000? Hell, that would have been a slow week for George W. Bush's killings of civilians in Iraq in 2003-05.

ziggy wrote:Only 3000? Hell, that would have been a slow week for George W. Bush's killings of civilians in Iraq in 2003-05.

I guess you feel the ragheads were justified in flying the planes into the World Trade Center and murdering 3,000 innocent souls. Be thankful then I wasn't the one calling the shots, because the muslim world would have suffered horribly.

ziggy wrote:Only 3000? Hell, that would have been a slow week for George W. Bush's killings of civilians in Iraq in 2003-05.

The more I think about your post the madder I get. Why don't you just admit that you hate this nation and everyone in it. Oh, you have no problem enjoying and using the benefits you have here and you would whine and pee and moan if any of the liberties were ever taken from you however. That you would just as soon see everyone of us dead and that you idolize anyone or group that attacks this nation and butchers innocent people.

Hi Zig,

George W Bush killed 3000 people in a week? When did he find the time to bankrupt the country?

From where do the civilian death estimates come? From Iraqis opposed to the American presence. This doesn't make them wrong, but it does make them worthy of much more scrutiny than they have received.

Where is all the outrage over the deaths of innocent Afghani civilians in recent weeks?

Oh, and btw........

I have NOT gone back and read all the messages I missed in recent weeks in this thread BUT........

I am compelled to point out when it comes to being "ruthless", no people or government in present times is worse than the Israeli goverment and the crazy Zionists who encourage and support their tactics.

Welcome back, Steph!

How exactly has the Israeli government been ruthless?

Rather than try to compile a list of Israeli atrocities in recent years, or even in recent months, I've instead chosen to provide you with a few links where you can read about it yourself.

B'Tselem

Physicians for Human Rights-Israel

United Nations Human Rights Council

Amnesty International 2009 Report on Israel

The UN Human Rights Council means nothing to me. These creeps are utterly impotent in preventing any genocide, anywhere, and yet still feel that writing words on paper is saving the fargin' world. It is also noteworthy that the UN does not believe that a Jewish state should exist. Anything the Jewish state does, in their opinion, is by necessity illegitimate. The other sources I'll have a look at.

On the matter of Israel I am torn for many reasons. I believe that whoever blesses Israel will be blessed by God. Before you toss that out as Falwell-like mishegas, consider that Israel was a landed people, spread out, and then 1870 years later or so, brought back to the land, just as Ezekiel said it would 2500 years or so ago.

At the same time, that does not mean that somehow everything Israel does is good or wise. If they are guilty of great atrocity they should be held accountable for it. I'll have a look at the sources and get back to you.

I agree with you regarding the UN. I included them because so many people do hold them in high regard.

B'Tselem is an organization comprised primarily of Jews living in Israel. I pay a lot of heed to what they have to say.

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:Only 3000? Hell, that would have been a slow week for George W. Bush's killings of civilians in Iraq in 2003-05.

I guess you feel the ragheads were justified in flying the planes into the World Trade Center and murdering 3,000 innocent souls. Be thankful then I wasn't the one calling the shots, because the muslim world would have suffered horribly.

What evidence is there that Iraqi civilians- or even the then Iraqi government- had anything to do with flying planes into the World Trade Center?

Paddling Johnny because maybe it was his 3rd cousin Jimmy was the one who did something bad does not keep anyone from doing bad things.

I love it, I really do how the subject of this has run the gambit from how the indians were treated to Israel's atroscities, to Bush killing Iraqis, to all the death and destruction in Afganistan. Yes, there is enough atroscities to go around and yes, we have blood on our hands, just as the muslim world and much of the world in general does. Now is everybody happy.

Hi Cato! I've missed you!

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:Only 3000? Hell, that would have been a slow week for George W. Bush's killings of civilians in Iraq in 2003-05.

I guess you feel the ragheads were justified in flying the planes into the World Trade Center and murdering 3,000 innocent souls.

Again- what evidence is there that Iraqi civilians- or even the then Iraqi government- had anything to do with flying planes into the World Trade Center? Paddling Johnny because maybe it was his 3rd cousin Jimmy was the one who did something bad does not keep anyone from doing bad things.

Be thankful then I wasn't the one calling the shots, because the muslim world would have suffered horribly.

So how would torturing Johnny's whole family- a horrible suffering- cause his 3rd cousin Jimmy to not do bad things?

Stephanie wrote:Hi Cato! I've missed you!

Hi

ziggy wrote:

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:Only 3000? Hell, that would have been a slow week for George W. Bush's killings of civilians in Iraq in 2003-05.

I guess you feel the ragheads were justified in flying the planes into the World Trade Center and murdering 3,000 innocent souls.

Again- what evidence is there that Iraqi civilians- or even the then Iraqi government- had anything to do with flying planes into the World Trade Center? Paddling Johnny because maybe it was his 3rd cousin Jimmy was the one who did something bad does not keep anyone from doing bad things.

Be thankful then I wasn't the one calling the shots, because the muslim world would have suffered horribly.

So how would torturing Johnny's whole family- a horrible suffering- cause his 3rd cousin Jimmy to not do bad things?

I take it from your dodge of the question you support the the muslims hijacking aircraft and flying them into the World Trade Center and Pentagon killing 3,000 people. Shame on you.

As far as the rest of your argument goes, if you want to call it an argument anyways, when one suffers the consequences for what another is doing, one tends to get a bit peeved at the one causing the problems. Is it fair, no. Does it work, you bet ya it does, ask General Sherman or General Patton if you don't believe me.

Cato, you did not ask a question. So I did not dodge one.

But I note that you did dodge several of mine. So, for the 3rd time, I ask you what evidence is there that Iraqi civilians- or even the then Iraqi government- had anything to do with flying planes into the World Trade Center?

ziggy wrote:Cato, you did not ask a question. So I did not dodge one.

But I note that you did dodge several of mine. So, for the 3rd time, I ask you what evidence is there that Iraqi civilians- or even the then Iraqi government- had anything to do with flying planes into the World Trade Center?

OK I'll be a lot more honest than you. There is no evidence that the Iraqis had anything to do with the World Trade Center Butchery that I am aware of.

Now to get back to the subject at hand, which you have dodged all over the place. You are the one that originally took exception to Mr Rudd's statement, show me where he is wrong in what he stated and why he is in error.

ziggy wrote:That has been the point of my posts here all along- that Cato (who says "As far as the muslim world goes, I don't give a tinkers damn about them.) can expect that Muslims will eventually become as ruthless in their zeal to change the western world to their purposes as white Europeans and the U.S. government was 2, 3 and 4 centuries ago. And, to be sure, today's god of Islam is a hell of a lot more militant than that of today's Christians. I think that Cato and most other Americans would be well advised to give more than a "tinkers damn" about the Islamic agenda to either convert or eradicate the infidels.

And therein lays the fallacy of your arguments. You’re comparing Muslims to what you term "European invaders" when they were not invaders at all, they were immigrants looking for a new land. And in doing so, they didn't leave Europe and head to established countries in the Middle East or Africa and try to change those established countries, they went to a new land, largely inhabited and unoccupied and set up settlements and grew from there.

No matter how you cut it, Europeans of the 15th-17th centuries had every right to the settlements they had established as well as to move to new, unoccupied lands just as nomadic Asian tribes had done.

From there, because of hospitalities and acts of violence from BOTH sides, what resulted was a century’s long war between nomadic Indian Americans and settled European Americans and like it or not Ziggy, when one fights a war, the goal is to win.

Yet you exempt the Amerindians from any blame because you claim since they arrived before Europeans, they had more right to the land. By that reasoning, Australians or Americans are justified if they commit acts of violence against Muslims up to and including murdering the entire family after brutally raping the women and torturing the men and then desecrating their bodies after death.

After all, they were there first.