2016 U.S. Presidential Elections: The Circus Is In Full Swing

Users who are viewing this thread


Last edited:
I have been to the Cherokee reservation and spoken to actual native Americans about it. Consensus is it was overblown. Truth is, that surprised me.

Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

Dancing to electro-pop like a robot since 1984
Subforum Moderator
even if that were true (which it is quite definitely not, to the point where you have basic facts about the whole thing fundamentally wrong) the trail of tears is just one of innumerable incidents. there are hundreds of individual massacres, mass deportations, and incidents of forced labour, forced starvation and cultural genocide. saying "i talked to a few guys who thought this one thing wasn't so bad" doesn't change that.

the sterilisation of native american women without their consent was still happening in the 1970s and this was literally admitted by the us government. (also a recurring and recent problem in canada, incidentally). the same applies to the stealing of native children.

tens of thousands of native americans were outright killed in the california genocides in the late 1800s and thousands more died from diseases due to the disruption fo their society and enslavement of survivors, and this was admitted by the california government.

those are just two notable cases where you are so wrong that even the government acknowledges it happened. there are many, many more, for instance:

mass enslavement of native americans was an especially common occurence throughout the south and west, primarily during the spanish period, but it continued into the early 18th century (with tens of thousands of native slaves being shipped out of florida and the carolinas, for instance).

in texas in the 19th century, the government explicitly had a policy of "total extinction" of the "subhumans" to make the land available to white settlers (sound familiar?) under president lamar of the texan republic, and in the course of the genocide several groups of natives were fully destroyed and others driven from their homes.

the navajo were forcibly resettled in the 1860s, when american troops destroyed their homes, slaughtered their livestock, killed anyone who resisted, and force marched the survivors over 400 miles, killing anyone who couldn't keep up. thousands died.

the whole reservation system itself is an explicit act of genocide, driving native americans from their homelands into less valuable lands, mostly against their will, often forced by the army, with terrible losses along the way.

again, these are just a few highlights. you're just wrong, dude. quit denying genocide.

Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

Dancing to electro-pop like a robot since 1984
Subforum Moderator
i see we've moved on from "it didn't happen" to "you're exaggerating" so i'll take that as progress. or maybe just a sign of you realising you can't keep lying about it quite as brazenly.

still, there's a ways for you to go yet.

if you ever feel like owning up and want a book recommendation hit me up, but till then i am done with your bull****
i see we've moved on from "it didn't happen" to "you're exaggerating" so i'll take that as progress. or maybe just a sign of you realising you can't keep lying about it quite as brazenly.

still, there's a ways for you to go yet.

if you ever feel like owning up and want a book recommendation hit me up, but till then i am done with your bull****.
I'm not done yet but you should be. Taking a handful of extraordinary examples while ignoring the millions or billions of day to day examples of interactions where nothing untoward happened. Examples which are omitted from your book offering I'm sure. Did whites kill native Americans? Yes. Did native Americans kill whites? Yes. But those are extraordinary examples.


Bedroom Assassin
Of course, you know that the vast majority of interactions between European settlers in America and later actual Americans were non-hostile? Most of the deaths caused among native Americans was caused by disease.
Just because deaths from diseases dwarf those of massacres, doesn't make the massacres insignificant.
Where do you have this information from. Is it in any history books you've read, or websites?
If so, can you give me some links?
It quite frankly sounds like genocide denial, so I'm curious about the source.


The American Indian Wars were a peace keeping operation that might have gone slightly wrong, at some points. Over 4 centuries. Nothing more.
At least they played a role in containing the Soviets at some point. But yes, what little remains of the alliance is a liability now.
They are at least an EU "partner" in containing the refugee flow, until they stop being useful in that way.
They also have useful airbases if you are NATO and want to bomb stuff in the Middle East, more precisely Incirlik where the US has stashed nuclear weapons too. There were Turkish limitations on its use (because they have their own policy in the region) so the Americans had to fly from Jordan to hit targets in Syria. The deteriorating relations with the Americans and Europeans make this very useful base dubious for future use and Greek and Cypriot alternative bases are being considered.
In geopolitical terms, if Turkey is pushed away by the West, it will end up in Russian company and Putin worked hard to make this happen. Do we (NATO countries) want this to happen? Do we want Russian missiles in Incirlik?
I'd welcome any more current info on the geopolitical outlook here if someone really follows this stuff, mine may be outdated.


Butthurt Bushmaster
Grandmaster Knight
Talking about any sort of strategic positioning of nuclear weapons is not really relevant to the current geopolitical situation as I understand it. It's more an issue that they threaten NATO's integrity with their constant posturing and occasional military action against allies in the region, particularly Greece. The recent Nagorno-Karabakh situation is also representative of this to some degree.
no, brutus. stop with the genocide denial.
\Since you have included slavery on the list of factors that disqualify country's and their leaders from being decent people, I plan to stop everything and anything I can. Slavery has existed since pre-history so you have consigned every tribe, clan, nation or nation-state to the scrap heap of history as well as all of their leaders. There's nothing left to debate about. I wonder if this book you place such value in wasn't written by a Nazi apologist to say Nazis weren't so bad, look at all these other countries, they had slavery, they did genocide, they tried to annihilate native peoples. Any debate after these claims is meaningless.
I even offered a concrete example of what can only be described as genocide, the massacre at Wounded Knee. But to say this was the sole purpose for all interaction of whites with native Americans is simply wrong. But picking isolated examples of genocide does not prove an overriding motive.


I mean the only reason these events appear to be in isolation is because nobody really has the time to list and explain the dozens and dozens of incidents that have occurred. There really shouldn't be a need to patiently explain why this has been a consistent policy of our country since its inception. Not to mention they're hardly in isolation from the context of imperialism and some of them were operations spanning decades and decades with a deathtoll in the tens of thousands rather than a massacre over a few days... of which there are still literally hundreds of examples.

The reason it comes off as genocide denial is because you're going out of your way to make it sound like it was just a few criminals in the US Cavalry getting a little too enthusiastic on the frontier rather than a systematic doctrine they were encouraged to pursue, which it undeniably was. Sure, not every single white American was just itching to join the cavalry so he can kill some natives and get a bounty for their scalps (which was a thing in some places btw) but it doesn't have to be like that for it to be a strategy of imperialism. We're discussing federal and state governments, not the Quakers or John Brown - genocide is typically a crime committed by states and state-like entities/organizations, not individuals.

Even our native allies (which is itself a common colonial strategy) were still stuffed on reservations with terrible land to subsist on shipments of lard and flour while their women are sterilized and children taken to be re-educated, things which are also considered genocide as they are explicitly motivated by the desire to eradicate a way of life. It's not as if the US had nothing to gain engaging in these kinds of activities, the "mission to civilize" being justification for coercive seizure of land and resources.
Top Bottom