Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Race study, 1st views on raceFollow

#77 May 20 2010 at 9:48 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
The problem is the US Government is us, personally. At least their checkbook is.

So it goes. Take it up with the esteemed Founding Fathers of our Indian-******** Government, I guess.

Quote:
An honest assessment, though, would put it in terms that don't imply guilt because it would acknowledge and emphasize that the actions taken in antiquity were acceptable at the time in either law or social mores.

But they weren't. There was plenty of opposition to the way the government interacted with the Indians, pretty much from the start. The fact that the people involved in government decision making decided they cared more about the land than their agreements with the natives didn't make it "right", even back then.

Hell, Jackson's forced eviction of the southeastern Indians wasn't even legal by the laughable standard of "their laws said it was acceptable" -- the Supreme Court ruled against it. The same can be said of the hundreds, if not thousands, of broken treaties and agreements ratified by our government.

We shouldn't be "guilty" because we didn't do it. Not because we tell ourselves that it was acceptable to do.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#78 May 20 2010 at 9:48 AM Rating: Good
Samira wrote:
I can't think of a time when breaking a contract was acceptable.

Breaking a treaty and breaking a contract were not always considered the same thing. It used to be ok to put national interests ahead of treaty obligations when a treaty was deemed to be harmful to the State.
#79 May 20 2010 at 9:51 AM Rating: Good
Jophiel wrote:
But they weren't. There was plenty of opposition to the way the government interacted with the Indians, pretty much from the start. The fact that the people involved in government decision making decided they cared more about the land than their agreements with the natives didn't make it "right", even back then.

Yeah, but back then we knew how to deal with bleeding hearts: ignore them.

Now we have TV, and can't.
#80 May 20 2010 at 9:58 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
Samira wrote:
I can't think of a time when breaking a contract was acceptable.

Breaking a treaty and breaking a contract were not always considered the same thing. It used to be ok to put national interests ahead of treaty obligations when a treaty was deemed to be harmful to the State.
This statement is simply saying a treaty because it is a contract with someone or some entity that is foreign, it is less valuable than a contract which of course is between nationals.



____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#81 May 20 2010 at 10:00 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
Samira wrote:
I can't think of a time when breaking a contract was acceptable.

Breaking a treaty and breaking a contract were not always considered the same thing. It used to be ok to put national interests ahead of treaty obligations when a treaty was deemed to be harmful to the State.


A treaty is just a contract between nations. A treaty can be renegotiated, can expire, or can be broken by one party which then releases the other party. The party breaking the treaty is still considered to be remiss, or delinquent, or whatever term you like. It's still a bad thing to do, and "national interest" is ludicrously vague as a reason for breaking a treaty in any case.

You either recognize other sovereign nations (which we did), and treat with them in good faith (which we did sometimes and failed to do at other times), or you refuse outright to do either.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#82 May 20 2010 at 10:40 AM Rating: Good
***
2,813 posts
When I was in first grade I took a black magic marker and colored my face with it. It took me a few years to realize the full implications of that and why my teacher got so mad and had to call my parents in to talk with the principal about it.

Another one of my first-grade classmates got in much deeper trouble when he told a black second-grader named Michael that he wasn't allowed on the school bus when it stopped to pick them both up at the bus stop. Our elementary school held an emergency all-school assembly and invited parents in to discuss the incident and many apologies were issued both from my classmate's family and the school administration. Looking back, that whole thing must have been pretty traumatic for Michael and his family. I think he was the only black kid at our elementary school.
#83 May 20 2010 at 10:53 AM Rating: Good
Samira wrote:
You either recognize other sovereign nations (which we did), and treat with them in good faith (which we did sometimes and failed to do at other times), or you refuse outright to do either.

Or you just change your mind.
#84 May 20 2010 at 10:55 AM Rating: Decent
****
8,619 posts
Quote:
Or you just change your mind.
Or flat out lie and use it as strategic advantage,
#85 May 20 2010 at 11:06 AM Rating: Good
tarv wrote:
Quote:
Or you just change your mind.
Or flat out lie and use it as strategic advantage,

I'm sorry, that sort of behavior is not tolerated unless you're a predominantly Muslim country. Or North Korea.

Or Latin America.

Or not the United States.
#86 May 20 2010 at 11:11 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Well, it seems that Moe's abandoned his beliefs that we're better than North Korea or Iran or Venezuela.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#87 May 20 2010 at 11:12 AM Rating: Decent
****
8,619 posts
Quote:
I'm sorry, that sort of behavior is not tolerated unless you're a predominantly Muslim country. Or North Korea.

Or Latin America.

Or not the United States.
it's a strategic advantage.
Smart generals are Smart.

It's war ladies and gentlemen not croquet.

Edited, May 20th 2010 1:13pm by tarv
#88 May 20 2010 at 11:16 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
But the whole point of a treaty is that it isn't war anymore.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#89 May 20 2010 at 11:17 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
tarv wrote:
It's war ladies and gentlemen not croquet.

What on earth are you talking about?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#90 May 20 2010 at 11:19 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Samira wrote:
But the whole point of a treaty is that it isn't war anymore.

Most weren't at war to start with. They were peacetime treaties, same as us forging an agreement with Canada or Britain today.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#91 May 20 2010 at 11:21 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Yes, yes, yes *dismissive handwave*. I'm talking specifically about the U.S. treaties with the various indigenous Nations.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#92 May 20 2010 at 11:21 AM Rating: Good
tarv wrote:
Quote:
I'm sorry, that sort of behavior is not tolerated unless you're a predominantly Muslim country. Or North Korea.

Or Latin America.

Or not the United States.
it's a strategic advantage.
Smart generals are Smart.

It's war ladies and gentlemen not croquet.

Edited, May 20th 2010 1:13pm by tarv

See, that's what it should say. What it did say is reflective of the vocal position in America ( you know, people like Jophiel who think we should get along and ***** actually winning anything).
Jophiel wrote:
Well, it seems that Moe's abandoned his beliefs that we're better than North Korea or Iran or Venezuela.

No, I have not abandoned that position. I was stating the observed rationale of your people in relation to foreign policy these days.
#93 May 20 2010 at 11:27 AM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
tarv wrote:
Quote:
Or you just change your mind.
Or flat out lie and use it as strategic advantage,

I'm sorry, that sort of behavior is not tolerated unless you're a predominantly Muslim country. Or North Korea.

Or Latin America.

Or not the United States.
Yeah, I've always been a bit suspicious of Tare too.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#94 May 20 2010 at 11:28 AM Rating: Excellent
Elinda wrote:
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
tarv wrote:
Quote:
Or you just change your mind.
Or flat out lie and use it as strategic advantage,

I'm sorry, that sort of behavior is not tolerated unless you're a predominantly Muslim country. Or North Korea.

Or Latin America.

Or not the United States.
Yeah, I've always been a bit suspicious of Tare too.

That made less sense than normal.
#95 May 20 2010 at 11:30 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
tarv wrote:
Quote:
I'm sorry, that sort of behavior is not tolerated unless you're a predominantly Muslim country. Or North Korea.

Or Latin America.

Or not the United States.
it's a strategic advantage.
Smart generals are Smart.

It's war ladies and gentlemen not croquet.

Edited, May 20th 2010 1:13pm by tarv

See, that's what it should say. What it did say is reflective of the vocal position in America ( you know, people like Jophiel who think we should get along and ***** actually winning anything).
Jophiel wrote:
Well, it seems that Moe's abandoned his beliefs that we're better than North Korea or Iran or Venezuela.

No, I have not abandoned that position. I was stating the observed rationale of your people in relation to foreign policy these days.


I guess this all hinges on your definition of "better".

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#96 May 20 2010 at 11:31 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Samira wrote:
Yes, yes, yes *dismissive handwave*. I'm talking specifically about the U.S. treaties with the various indigenous Nations.

I'm saying most of those treaties had nothing to do with war. So nyeah.
Moe wrote:
I was stating the observed rationale of your people in relation to foreign policy these days.

Americans of Polish-Bohemian ancestry?

Again, it's not as though thinking that the Indians were getting a raw deal is somehow a new perception. Acknowledging that the government was willfully violating its treaties and agreements isn't new either. The fact that the government ignored those concerns doesn't mean it was correct to do so, only that it ignored them.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#97 May 20 2010 at 11:33 AM Rating: Good
Jophiel wrote:
Samira wrote:
Yes, yes, yes *dismissive handwave*. I'm talking specifically about the U.S. treaties with the various indigenous Nations.

I'm saying most of those treaties had nothing to do with war. So nyeah.

Yeah, we just threatened to move them all by force (war).
#98 May 20 2010 at 11:42 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
Yeah, we just threatened to move them all by force (war).

Yeah, that was the violation of the treaties.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#99 May 20 2010 at 11:49 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
Elinda wrote:
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
tarv wrote:
Quote:
Or you just change your mind.
Or flat out lie and use it as strategic advantage,

I'm sorry, that sort of behavior is not tolerated unless you're a predominantly Muslim country. Or North Korea.

Or Latin America.

Or not the United States.
Yeah, I've always been a bit suspicious of Tare too.

That made less sense than normal.
I made more sense than you did.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#100 May 20 2010 at 12:06 PM Rating: Good
Jophiel wrote:
His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
Yeah, we just threatened to move them all by force (war).

Yeah, that was the violation of the treaties.

No, that was how we got them to sign the treaties that made them move under supervision, free from war.
#101 May 20 2010 at 12:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Elinda wrote:
I made more sense than you did.

Only in your cramped mind, darlin.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 239 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (239)