Quote: (06-14-2014 05:02 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote: (06-14-2014 04:57 AM)solo Wrote:  

The only reason White America became the world's richest country in the first place is because the US government deceived, starved and killed the peoples who lived there first. Not to mention bringing over slaves from Africa to do their manual labor for them.

There have been thousands of societies with slave labor - how come they did not turn out as prosperous as America?

Tons of reasons:
- Many societies didn't turn out as prosperous as America since they were from a different age. One reason America became so prosperous was because it was founded in the 18th century and had the larger accumulation of knowledge available to them. Of course a society who used slave labour thousands of years before that wasn't going to be as advanced.

- Possibly climate. Cold climate = you have to work more to not freeze to death during the winter.

- Innovation

- Culture of work ethic which had a lot to do with:

- Religion. When it comes to promoting things like work ethic, free competition and anti-corruption, Christianity is far superior to Islam, Protestantism superior to Catholicism etc.

- Free trade and openness. China started declining when they closed their borders.

- Possibly genes. Whites are possibly slightly more intelligent on average than other races, with the possible exception of Asians. I feel I want to point out that any such difference obviously does not justify any kind of racism or such. Also Whites seem to be better organized.

- I remember Niall Ferguson mentioned another reason in his Civilization documentary series. It had something to do with property rights but he didn't make his point clearly enough. I think it went something like: In South America property rights were concentrated while in North America they were more evenly distributed.

- etc

Quote: (06-14-2014 05:02 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

If slavery produces so much wealth, why was the North 3x richer than the South at the start of the civil war?

My main point was that the only reason USA was able to became the world's richest country in the first place, was that it immorally and illegally took the land from the Natives. I mentioned slavery to further emphasize the immoral foundation of the country. I didn't mean slavery was the sole purpose of America becoming wealthy.

Quote: (06-14-2014 05:02 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Also - the Indians themselves were constantly killing each other over territorial control long before the Whites came. They lost in fair combat just as they had taken the land from other Indians.

Irrelevant. If I murder a murderer, I am still committing murder.

(This is even assuming what you're saying is valid, for the sake of argument. Not all Indian tribes killed all other Indian tribes to the same, or any, extent. Also, the Whites didn't keep track on who had killed who).

Quote: (06-14-2014 05:02 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Latin America was also another country built on slavery - how come they didn't turn out as rich as America?

I think I've pretty much already answered this question.

Quote: (06-14-2014 05:02 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Why can't Latin Americans fix their own problems instead of trying to take what others have built?

Some, though not all, of Latin American problems are partially or completely caused by the US. Invasions, supporting coup d'états and sanguine dictatorships, drugs, trade embargos, using Latin Americans for Josef Mengele-style experiments etc etc
Also, most Latin Americans have even less say in their future than Americans do.

Quote: (06-14-2014 05:02 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

In fact, the United States came about through hard work and dedication. All the lies you've been taught in school about the "evil White man" are just that - total fabrications with no basis in reality.

Don't worry about me - I'm onto the "evil white man propaganda". But at the same time, to say it is a total fabrication with no basis in reality is ridiculously easy to disprove. In fact, the white man has heaped misery and suffering on other peoples.

Quote:Quote:

My main point was that the only reason USA was able to became the world's richest country in the first place, was that it immorally and illegally took the land from the Natives. I mentioned slavery to further emphasize the immoral foundation of the country. I didn't mean slavery was the sole purpose of America becoming wealthy.

Natives, of course, who never fought each other over territory or anything else, right?
Practically every square inch of this planet is ruled by people who fought and took it from someone else. If "your ancestors took land from someone else's ancestors" is a legitimate reason to justify an invasion by another party, the United States has carte blanch to invade every bit of land on the planet and take whatever the heck we want. I say we invade Brazil, the chicks there are pretty hot and if we hit them now they'll be distracted by the soccer game.

Quote: (06-13-2014 09:54 PM)Screwston Wrote:  

Samseau, in a civil war scenario - will the Aryans let you fight with them since you're half Korean?

Considering Hitler was "allied" with the Japanese during WWII despite thinking they were inferior, I would say yes.....and then the Aryans will turn their backs on their "allies".

Quote: (06-14-2014 06:30 PM)Cattle Rustler Wrote:  

Quote: (06-13-2014 09:54 PM)Screwston Wrote:  

Samseau, in a civil war scenario - will the Aryans let you fight with them since you're half Korean?

Considering Hitler was "allied" with the Japanese during WWII despite thinking they were inferior, I would say yes.....and then the Aryans will turn their backs on their "allies".

I was going to say no, but that is a viable possibility. Hopefully there is no situation where it comes down to a race war. There have been ethnic wars many times over, but I'm be afraid of the precedence that a straight up 'color' war would set and what that conflict would be like.

Quote: (06-14-2014 06:30 PM)Cattle Rustler Wrote:  

Quote: (06-13-2014 09:54 PM)Screwston Wrote:  

Samseau, in a civil war scenario - will the Aryans let you fight with them since you're half Korean?

Considering Hitler was "allied" with the Japanese during WWII despite thinking they were inferior, I would say yes.....and then the Aryans will turn their backs on their "allies".

The good ol' days
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican%E2%...erican_War

Quote: (06-14-2014 06:06 PM)solo Wrote:  

Quote: (06-14-2014 05:02 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote: (06-14-2014 04:57 AM)solo Wrote:  

The only reason White America became the world's richest country in the first place is because the US government deceived, starved and killed the peoples who lived there first. Not to mention bringing over slaves from Africa to do their manual labor for them.

There have been thousands of societies with slave labor - how come they did not turn out as prosperous as America?

Tons of reasons:
- Many societies didn't turn out as prosperous as America since they were from a different age. One reason America became so prosperous was because it was founded in the 18th century and had the larger accumulation of knowledge available to them. Of course a society who used slave labour thousands of years before that wasn't going to be as advanced.

Was knowledge not available to other countries? Did the USA keep information away from other countries by not allowing them to buy books or translate materials? What was so special about the 18th century that made it the MAGIC moment when all countries could accumulate knowledge but countries founded in 1820 couldn't accumulate it?

- Possibly climate. Cold climate = you have to work more to not freeze to death during the winter.

[b]Is Russia warmer than the UK? Is Mongolia warmer than France? How does this make sense? Didn't Egypt have more wealth than all of Europe at one time?[/b]

- Innovation

[b]What was it that made them innovate? [/b]

- Culture of work ethic which had a lot to do with:

[b]What part of their culture made them have a strong work ethic?
[/b]

- Religion. When it comes to promoting things like work ethic, free competition and anti-corruption, Christianity is far superior to Islam, Protestantism superior to Catholicism etc.

[b]Why is this? When did this change? Was there ever a time where Christian nations were behind Islamic ones or Protestant behind Catholic ones and if there was does this make your point invalid?

- Free trade and openness. China started declining when they closed their borders.

Were they the only ones to close their borders?[/b]

- Possibly genes. Whites are possibly slightly more intelligent on average than other races, with the possible exception of Asians. I feel I want to point out that any such difference obviously does not justify any kind of racism or such. Also Whites seem to be better organized.

[b]If whites have a higher IQ than other races why wouldn't that justify racism? If Asians have a higher average IQ then why are Asian countries behind European ones in per capita GDP and not the other way around?

- I remember Niall Ferguson mentioned another reason in his Civilization documentary series. It had something to do with property rights but he didn't make his point clearly enough. I think it went something like: In South America property rights were concentrated while in North America they were more evenly distributed.

[Niall Ferguson is a politically correct boob. If it comes out on PBS, BBC /b] or a major network it is PC bullcrap why didn't South Americans have property rights? Are all South American countries the same did Argentina, Brazil and Peru have the same structure in their governments when it came down to property rights?

- etc

[b]WTF?

Quote: (06-14-2014 05:02 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

If slavery produces so much wealth, why was the North 3x richer than the South at the start of the civil war?

My main point was that the only reason USA was able to became the world's richest country in the first place, was that it immorally and illegally took the land from the Natives. I mentioned slavery to further emphasize the immoral foundation of the country. I didn't mean slavery was the sole purpose of America becoming wealthy.

How was it illegal for the USA to take land from the American Indian? Was there an ICC that would take them to task with a world police? Where is your basis of this illegality? Was it legal then for the Olmec's to take over the Toltec's, then the Aztec's afterward? Did the law only apply to Europeans and not the American Indian? What about Arab and Turkish pirates who plundered the Mediterranean sea for slaves and loot can Italians take them to court? Why was it immoral for Europeans to conquer American Indians if they had been conquering each other for so long even taking each other as slaves and wiping each other out completely? In the wild might makes right and in a world with limited resources this is the law you are typing this with a full belly and in a climate controlled room with police protection this world is very different from the world the settlers knew. The island of Manhattan was purchased for some beads, mirrors and trinkets so they got something in return for much of the land the settlers took as it was purchased in fair trade for horses, whiskey, rifles, etc.[/b]

Quote: (06-14-2014 05:02 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Also - the Indians themselves were constantly killing each other over territorial control long before the Whites came. They lost in fair combat just as they had taken the land from other Indians.

Irrelevant. If I murder a murderer, I am still committing murder.

(This is even assuming what you're saying is valid, for the sake of argument. Not all Indian tribes killed all other Indian tribes to the same, or any, extent. Also, the Whites didn't keep track on who had killed who).

[b]Which American Indian Tribes didn't kill each other or never had to kill whether in self defense or survival of the fittest? Any citations or proof? Is self defense murder? Was there a time when American Indians could live in a Garden of Eden or were they sometimes tempted to take from another tribe?

Quote: (06-14-2014 05:02 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Latin America was also another country built on slavery - how come they didn't turn out as rich as America?

I think I've pretty much already answered this question.

[b]No you haven't

Quote: (06-14-2014 05:02 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Why can't Latin Americans fix their own problems instead of trying to take what others have built?

Some, though not all, of Latin American problems are partially or completely caused by the US. Invasions, supporting coup d'états and sanguine dictatorships, drugs, trade embargos, using Latin Americans for Josef Mengele-style experiments etc etc
Also, most Latin Americans have even less say in their future than Americans do.

This still doesn't explain why they are poorer or what problems they have. At one time Argentina was the 4th wealthiest country in the world and challenged the US for hemispheric supremacy yet now they are a basket case with a history of coups and hyperinflation. Is all that the fault of the US? The first university in the hemisphere was in Mexico City the UNAM not Harvard in fact it had about a 70 year head start over Harvard so why is it totally overlooked now? Did the USA not do those things in Asia or Europe? Support coups, blockade or invade them? We bombed civilians in Dresden and they rebuilt it we nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki and 40 years later they try to conquer us with money. Didn't we treat Germany and Japan FAR worse than Latin America yet a generation later they challenge us again. Shit you can make the argument that Germany conquered Europe with the Euro now and they were bombed, invaded, partitioned and had their president forced to commit suicide yet they still are very powerful.
[/b]

Quote: (06-14-2014 05:02 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

In fact, the United States came about through hard work and dedication. All the lies you've been taught in school about the "evil White man" are just that - total fabrications with no basis in reality.

Don't worry about me - I'm onto the "evil white man propaganda". But at the same time, to say it is a total fabrication with no basis in reality is ridiculously easy to disprove. In fact, the white man has heaped misery and suffering on other peoples.

You haven't disproved anything the white man has heaped more good than bad just like any other population around the world. integrating economies, creating value there is nothing special about the white mans evil its no bigger or smaller than anyone else's the only difference is that they have been able to touch more people good or bad for a variety of reasons that can't be explained through simple PC propaganda since PC makes you and me stupid. There have been larger empires than the USA that didn't produce anything of value like the Mongolians the difference is the USA actually created something while they didn't.

Quote: (06-14-2014 05:02 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote: (06-14-2014 04:57 AM)solo Wrote:  

The only reason White America became the world's richest country in the first place is because the US government deceived, starved and killed the peoples who lived there first. Not to mention bringing over slaves from Africa to do their manual labor for them.

There have been thousands of societies with slave labor - how come they did not turn out as prosperous as America?

If slavery produces so much wealth, why was the North 3x richer than the South at the start of the civil war?

Also - the Indians themselves were constantly killing each other over territorial control long before the Whites came. They lost in fair combat just as they had taken the land from other Indians.

Quote:Quote:

Then when poor Latin Americans want the same opportunities that the first waves of White Americans got, conservatives are like:

"Oh no, sorry, we're closed now".

Not very honourable to say the least.

Latin America was also another country built on slavery - how come they didn't turn out as rich as America?

Why can't Latin Americans fix their own problems instead of trying to take what others have built?

Quote:Quote:

Because of how the United States came about, I have zero sympathy for White Americans who are anti-immigration.

In fact, the United States came about through hard work and dedication. All the lies you've been taught in school about the "evil White man" are just that - total fabrications with no basis in reality.

Latin America couldn't fix their problems in the 20th century because the Spanish colonizers enslaved their people, sacked their social structure and stole all of their resources. In fact, all of the Spanish colonies are poor today. Spain is by far the worst colonizer in history (as opposed to the British).

Now they are fixing it, and most Latin American countries will be fully developed by the end of this century.

The Spaniards instilled a culture of patronage and laziness in their colonies. It is funny to look what has happened to Spain today without these colonies working for them. They still sleep in the afternoon and have shitty work ethic. Now they have become the arm pit of Western Europe.

In terms of immigration, I really believe in restricted immigration in America. Yes to immigration where jobs are needed, no to immigration when jobs are scarce. No to immigration welfare.

About the whole Aryan ethno-race arguments people are making here, take that rubbish talk to Europe. Compared to countries like Germany and Chinese, where the Germans and Chinese people have inhabited the land through history, North America has been traditionally owned by Native Indians. I would have understood an All Aryan (White) or Han (Asian) arguments in Germany or China, but in the United States? Bleh.

Quote: (06-15-2014 03:26 AM)GenghisKhan Wrote:  

Quote: (06-14-2014 05:02 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote: (06-14-2014 04:57 AM)solo Wrote:  

The only reason White America became the world's richest country in the first place is because the US government deceived, starved and killed the peoples who lived there first. Not to mention bringing over slaves from Africa to do their manual labor for them.

There have been thousands of societies with slave labor - how come they did not turn out as prosperous as America?

If slavery produces so much wealth, why was the North 3x richer than the South at the start of the civil war?

Also - the Indians themselves were constantly killing each other over territorial control long before the Whites came. They lost in fair combat just as they had taken the land from other Indians.

Quote:Quote:

Then when poor Latin Americans want the same opportunities that the first waves of White Americans got, conservatives are like:

"Oh no, sorry, we're closed now".

Not very honourable to say the least.

Latin America was also another country built on slavery - how come they didn't turn out as rich as America?

Why can't Latin Americans fix their own problems instead of trying to take what others have built?

Quote:Quote:

Because of how the United States came about, I have zero sympathy for White Americans who are anti-immigration.

In fact, the United States came about through hard work and dedication. All the lies you've been taught in school about the "evil White man" are just that - total fabrications with no basis in reality.

Latin America couldn't fix their problems in the 20th century because the Spanish colonizers enslaved their people, sacked their social structure and stole all of their resources. In fact, all of the Spanish colonies are poor today. Spain is by far the worst colonizer in history (as opposed to the British).

[u]Were Argentines and Uruguayans enslaved is that why they're oppressed? Which resources did they steal do you mean the ones that were underground that they had to mine is that really stealing? Are Spanish colonies really worse off than French or Arabic colonies in Africa with per capita GDP's in the triple digits or Russian/Soviet colonies in Central Asia run by dictators? Did the native populations exploit each other isn't that why they were so weak when confronted with a bunch of lazy socialist Spaniards or backward European colonists isn't that also the case with Africans would these people have a better or worse chance in making a nation together isn't that their social structure in their own countries and not a result of slavery or occupation?

Now they are fixing it, and most Latin American countries will be fully developed by the end of this century.

Latin American countries are running out of toilet paper (Venezuela), having people get their heads chopped off (Mexico), hyper-inflating currencies (Argentina), threatening war with their neighbors (Argentina - Malvinas/Falklands) in fact without a strong man dictator they lose out right away social structures fall out with violent riots in the streets.

The Spaniards instilled a culture of patronage and laziness in their colonies. It is funny to look what has happened to Spain today without these colonies working for them. They still sleep in the afternoon and have shitty work ethic. Now they have become the arm pit of Western Europe.

The Spaniards have a reputation for laziness all over the world and Latin America so this is true but then how did they become so dominant? If they are the armpit of Western Europe why do so many people want to retire there and live there?

In terms of immigration, I really believe in restricted immigration in America. Yes to immigration where jobs are needed, no to immigration when jobs are scarce. No to immigration welfare.

[/u]The basis of citizenship in the west is equality why wouldn't immigrants have access to the welfare state just like any other citizen isn't it just? Definitely there should be a skill set required for citizenship but doesn't that leave out the poorest and most downtrodden isn't that RACIST? If an immigrant comes in with a skill and decides to go on welfare instead should they automatically lose their citizenship?

About the whole Aryan ethno-race arguments people are making here, take that rubbish talk to Europe. Compared to countries like Germany and Chinese, where the Germans and Chinese people have inhabited the land through history, North America has been traditionally owned by Native Indians. I would have understood an All Aryan (White) or Han (Asian) arguments in Germany or China, but in the United States? Bleh.

China is a pigsty one of the filthiest countries in the world most Chinese would love to immigrate to Latin America and many are trying. Germany's history is loaded with wars and poor behavior on their part in fomenting dissent and roller coaster economies due to war. Even now they are in a good position because of the Euro as other countries can't inflate their currency to protect their markets or put up tariffs as there are no tariffs in the EU, Merkel has more power over Europe than Hitler could ever dream of.

Quote: (06-14-2014 04:42 PM)solo Wrote:  

If you don't know where to begin, a suggestion is to begin by reading my post again: I said the only reason White America prospered *in the first place* was that they took the land from the Indians, either directly or indirectly. Of course hard work and freedoms were necessary like you say but all of that wouldn't have mattered if they didn't have any land to build the country on in the first place.

This assumption rests on the argument that all land acquired by early settlers was forcibly/illegally taken? What about land that was purchased (i.e. New York)?

Also, this also assumes that the Indians appeared there and didn't take it from someone else.

Quote:Quote:

No, that's what *you* are saying. However others think differently and want to severely limit or even outright ban immigration completely (even possibly but not necessarily people on this thread).

I understand that the current official US policy is not one of closed doors and it's incorrect to claim I eluded it is in my post.

No that is what most people think, your using extreme minority opinions and trying to pass them off as common.

Quote:Quote:

I also understand that there are practical problems associated with free immigration if you consider the interests of US citizens. But that doesn't change the fact that denying entrance to people in need of coming to the US is dishonorable and hypocritical considering how the US government in the past paid no such consideration to the Natives when deciding the immigration quotas.

And you just agreed with me and proved my point in your first sentence.

We don't owe foreigners anything. If they want to come to this country, we welcome them, so long as they abide by the rules. Just because there may or may not have been injustices, doesn't mean that people who didn't experience those injustices should be rewarded.

Quote:Quote:

In any case, if the US had stayed true to its founding principle of small government, it wouldn't have much of a Welfare State and immigration would be closer to a non-issue. Instead I suspect Americans now face a higher tax rate than what the English forced upon them and which was one of the reasons for their quest for independence.

Hypothetical situation, does not apply to current debate. But yes that is correct.

Quote:Quote:

This is very convenient for anti-immigration conservatives. However it still doesn't change my point that being opposed to immigration as a White American is dishonorable and hypocritical: in the past the "freebies" (of sorts) was the land that lured the Europeans to emigrate. US government didn't care that the land had been largely stolen or taken when the Natives had died for various reasons directly related to the colonization, so I don't see why they should care that the welfare checks are stolen from the taxpayers also. (Well actually, I do see why they care - they wouldn't get reelected if they didn't - but I think I've made my point).

You still haven't explained why it is dishonorable and hypocritical, beyond your blatant racist and anti-American viewpoints.

Past sins don't justify present sins.

Quote:Quote:

What I suspect you may be getting at though, is that *extreme* liberals with their bloated and excessive government is actually a much worse enemy to immigrants than conservatives. (Since high levels of immigration and an excessive Welfare State are mutually exclusive). That is correct IMO.

Now you are agreeing with me and saying that liberals are to blame.

Can you just admit I am right and you are wrong at this point and we can end this?

Quote:Quote:

I would be happy to see the end of the US in its current form. It has waged wars on poor countries for decades and is now one of the leading feminist countries in the West. The U.S. government exists to protect the interests of U.S. citizens and taxpayers only in theory - in practice they fuck over everyone else but themselves, like most other governments. So I don't think its necessary to preserve what exists.

Yes, because you are an anti-American racist, its seethes through everything you post. You are probably from some poor country that was long ago a victim of colonialism, however, has been mired in poverty because of a victim mentality and lazy worth ethic prevents you from doing the hard work necessary to make a country great/rich. It's much easier to sit around and complain about colonialism, slavery (which haven't existed in over 100 years), or the big bag U.S. who wont let you come in and freeload than to actually improve your situation.

I want a country that looks out for its citizens first and foremost, I have no shame in that opinion.

Quote:Quote:

About the whole Aryan ethno-race arguments people are making here, take that rubbish talk to Europe. Compared to countries like Germany and Chinese, where the Germans and Chinese people have inhabited the land through history, North America has been traditionally owned by Native Indians. I would have understood an All Aryan (White) or Han (Asian) arguments in Germany or China, but in the United States? Bleh.

One of the more overlooked facts in the history of "Whites vs. Indians" is that the whites won through pure accident. The Indians died off mostly to disease, and then the whites out-reproduced them because of agricultural practices the Indians did not like.

Most of the "warfare" myths surrounding Whites vs. Indians is just hype. There really wasn't much killing of the Indians. All that happened was the Whites could sustain much higher rates of reproduction. They had a superior way of life. On top of that, Indian women found White men attractive and Indian men found White women attractive. The fact that Whites had much higher birthrates and carried genes that are slightly more recessive which breeds out non-White genes, means the Indians basically disappeared through mostly non-violent means.

Quote:Quote:

Most of the "warfare" myths surrounding Whites vs. Indians is just hype. There really wasn't much killing of the Indians. All that happened was the Whites could sustain much higher rates of reproduction. They had a superior way of life. On top of that, Indian women found White men attractive and Indian men found White women attractive. The fact that Whites had much higher birthrates and carried genes that are slightly more recessive which breeds out non-White genes, means the Indians basically disappeared through mostly non-violent means.

That's really interesting. I knew that most of the Indians got wiped out by disease, similar to the way that Europe got its ass raped by the Black Plague in the late middle ages. But I'd never heard that there was a lot of interbreeding, to the point that it was one of the major reasons that the Indians disappeared. Can you elaborate on this, or do you have a source where I can read more?

Quote: (06-14-2014 04:57 AM)solo Wrote:  

The only reason White America became the world's richest country in the first place is because the US government deceived, starved and killed the peoples who lived there first. Not to mention bringing over slaves from Africa to do their manual labor for them.

Then when poor Latin Americans want the same opportunities that the first waves of White Americans got, conservatives are like:

"Oh no, sorry, we're closed now".

Not very honourable to say the least.

Because of how the United States came about, I have zero sympathy for White Americans who are anti-immigration.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYfek6ydf3M

That was brilliant! Here's that video here for you:

Quote: (06-15-2014 02:35 PM)MidWest Wrote:  

Quote: (06-14-2014 04:57 AM)solo Wrote:  

The only reason White America became the world's richest country in the first place is because the US government deceived, starved and killed the peoples who lived there first. Not to mention bringing over slaves from Africa to do their manual labor for them.

Then when poor Latin Americans want the same opportunities that the first waves of White Americans got, conservatives are like:

"Oh no, sorry, we're closed now".

Not very honourable to say the least.

Because of how the United States came about, I have zero sympathy for White Americans who are anti-immigration.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYfek6ydf3M

That was brilliant! Here's that video here for you:

You REALLY think this drunk Navajo is BRILLIANT? Doesn't he have his own nation in AZ? Casino's and toxic waste dumps? Would he really like to go back to starving in his stone age ways or does he enjoy electricity, plumbing, food stamps, Bureau of Indian Affairs goodies, etc.?

Quote: (06-15-2014 03:26 AM)GenghisKhan Wrote:  

About the whole Aryan ethno-race arguments people are making here, take that rubbish talk to Europe. Compared to countries like Germany and Chinese, where the Germans and Chinese people have inhabited the land through history, North America has been traditionally owned by Native Indians. I would have understood an All Aryan (White) or Han (Asian) arguments in Germany or China, but in the United States? Bleh.

The United States was founded and developed by North-western Europeans, not so called "Native Americans" (who curiously have a European derived name).

It makes perfect sense actually.

Quote: (06-15-2014 03:53 PM)cool guy Wrote:  

Quote: (06-15-2014 02:35 PM)MidWest Wrote:  

Quote: (06-14-2014 04:57 AM)solo Wrote:  

The only reason White America became the world's richest country in the first place is because the US government deceived, starved and killed the peoples who lived there first. Not to mention bringing over slaves from Africa to do their manual labor for them.

Then when poor Latin Americans want the same opportunities that the first waves of White Americans got, conservatives are like:

"Oh no, sorry, we're closed now".

Not very honourable to say the least.

Because of how the United States came about, I have zero sympathy for White Americans who are anti-immigration.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYfek6ydf3M

That was brilliant! Here's that video here for you:

You REALLY think this drunk Navajo is BRILLIANT? Doesn't he have his own nation in AZ? Casino's and toxic waste dumps? Would he really like to go back to starving in his stone age ways or does he enjoy electricity, plumbing, food stamps, Bureau of Indian Affairs goodies, etc.?

It still doesn't make this an Aryan country you are clamoring for.

Europe is the Aryan man's land. I'll give you that. The US is not. This is a home originally of native Indian tribes, populated by white pilgrims and now home for every American citizen in all races.

I'm going to respectfully eject from this discussion. We're not convincing each other here. We'll just bring about hate. I'm going back to the game forum.

I personally believe in "might makes right" in civilization. Not that I feel that it's moral or good but if you look at the history of the world this has always been true. No reason to fight it or moralize too much about it because it's part of human nature. Countries, boundaries, and ethnic lines are a fluid thing that change throughout history.

Native Americans simply couldn't compete against the superior military and economy of the European settlers. They lost "their" land and are slowly being writ out of history. That's just how it goes sometime.

Tibetans in China are the same way. A slow dying ethnicity of largely irrelevant people being eradicated by a much larger better equipped majority.

None of this is all that sad in the bigger picture. It's just the same cycle of conquest and another shifting of ethnic boundaries. Every war we've seen since the beginning of human kind has just been a macro or micro scale of this.

Just keep in mind it's often a double edged sword in history. European settlers once colonized land "belonging" to natives but now the U.S. is slowly being recolonized by latino/hispanic people south of the border.

It's another cycle. You either adapt or prevent it.

Quote: (06-15-2014 08:07 PM)GenghisKhan Wrote:  

Quote: (06-15-2014 03:53 PM)cool guy Wrote:  

Quote: (06-15-2014 02:35 PM)MidWest Wrote:  

Quote: (06-14-2014 04:57 AM)solo Wrote:  

The only reason White America became the world's richest country in the first place is because the US government deceived, starved and killed the peoples who lived there first. Not to mention bringing over slaves from Africa to do their manual labor for them.

Then when poor Latin Americans want the same opportunities that the first waves of White Americans got, conservatives are like:

"Oh no, sorry, we're closed now".

Not very honourable to say the least.

Because of how the United States came about, I have zero sympathy for White Americans who are anti-immigration.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYfek6ydf3M

That was brilliant! Here's that video here for you:

You REALLY think this drunk Navajo is BRILLIANT? Doesn't he have his own nation in AZ? Casino's and toxic waste dumps? Would he really like to go back to starving in his stone age ways or does he enjoy electricity, plumbing, food stamps, Bureau of Indian Affairs goodies, etc.?

It still doesn't make this an Aryan country you are clamoring for.

Europe is the Aryan man's land. I'll give you that. The US is not. This is a home originally of native Indian tribes, populated by white pilgrims and now home for every American citizen in all races.

I'm going to respectfully eject from this discussion. We're not convincing each other here. We'll just bring about hate. I'm going back to the game forum.

I'm not clamoring for this to be Aryan Europe land? WTF? This IS a multicultural multiracial country but everyone needs to take constructive criticism and so far ONLY Whites can be criticized so ONLY Whites can progress to make themselves a better people while everyone else is allowed to be dysfunctional and racist/prejudiced. I am a Mexican-American of Zacatecan American Indian descent if I am never expected to answer for my own shit I can never better myself as a person as a people we always blame the Whites and then fail. It was US Indians who brought down other Indians or they never would have been able to beat us, it was Africans who enslaved Africans Europeans would never have been able to take them as slaves on their own as African diseases would've killed them. China traveled the world long before Columbus but their own religion Confucianism made them end their expeditions around the oceans and continents and they corrupted themselves. Everyone is trying to blame the Euro's and only the Euro's are progressing it does us non-Euro people a big disservice to continue this and keep it going on the only way to move forward and strengthen ourselves is to know our weaknesses and where they come from.

I've never understood this "we" nonsense. Maybe I'm biased being multiracial, but "your people" don't give a shit about you. That white guy cares much more about his black friend than he does the "white race," and so on. It's all bullshit. You can only improve yourself and encourage those around you to do the same.

Quote: (06-15-2014 10:02 PM)magellan Wrote:  

I've never understood this "we" nonsense. Maybe I'm biased being multiracial, but "your people" don't give a shit about you. That white guy cares much more about his black friend than he does the "white race," and so on. It's all bullshit. You can only improve yourself and encourage those around you to do the same.

You are biased being multiracial "we" usually means shared experiences in certain ethnic groups or nationalities. We as Americans are pretty optimistic people compared to the rest of the world is something I would say and use as we. Usually a shared trait such as devaluing education as being a "white" thing that many underclass minorities share or getting married before a certain age for rural kids growing up "we country folks marry early and have kids earlier than city folks" was something I was always told which is universal I think whether it be the USA, Mexico or Russia. Other cultural traits that need to be shamed out such as not taking drinking and driving seriously which used to happen in the 50's in the US but in Mexico its just started taking place about 10 years ago. Slut shaming ended for women about 20-30 years ago but Islamic women still get it from their parents and community. Part of the problem with ethnic communities is that man of these cultural pathologies live on and there's not introspection about these things and disingenuous white liberals profit from this with bureaucrat jobs for nice white social workers and office drones while at the same time feeling better about themselves as if they're doing a service to society. The Bureau of Indian Affairs is a huge culprit in supporting alcoholism and obesity on reservations while supporting bad elements brought into these communities by gaming casinos and toxic/nuclear waste dumps. When people go after the wrong things who can blame me for getting angry about it?

Quote: (06-14-2014 06:24 PM)Faust Wrote:  

Quote:Quote:

My main point was that the only reason USA was able to became the world's richest country in the first place, was that it immorally and illegally took the land from the Natives. I mentioned slavery to further emphasize the immoral foundation of the country. I didn't mean slavery was the sole purpose of America becoming wealthy.

Natives, of course, who never fought each other over territory or anything else, right?
Practically every square inch of this planet is ruled by people who fought and took it from someone else. If "your ancestors took land from someone else's ancestors" is a legitimate reason to justify an invasion by another party, the United States has carte blanch to invade every bit of land on the planet and take whatever the heck we want. I say we invade Brazil, the chicks there are pretty hot and if we hit them now they'll be distracted by the soccer game.

Who has claimed that the Natives never fought amongst themselves?
I've already refuted this argument and Im surprised at the frequency it is brought forward (at least twice in this thread alone) given how poorly it has been thought through. It implies that just because the Natives fought each other the Europeans' crimes against them are somehow justified. I doubt many were calling for a foreign invasion of the US when the Whites were fighting themselves in the Civil War.

Furthermore, just because some tribes happened to fight and kill each other doesn't mean all of them did, nor that all individuals of the tribes did. Conversely, not all Whites killed the Natives but more or less all Whites benefited from how the Natives were deceived and treated by the US government.

cool guy,

"Was knowledge not available to other countries? Did the USA keep information away from other countries by not allowing them to buy books or translate materials? What was so special about the 18th century that made it the MAGIC moment when all countries could accumulate knowledge but countries founded in 1820 couldn't accumulate it?"

You have not understood my argument. Go back and read from my first post in this thread again. I'm pretty sure the ancient Greeks used slaves, which I think was one of the reasons that allowed them to sit around all day and philosophize. Obviously the Greeks who had their peak thousands of years ago had access to less knowledge and technology than America in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries. Consequently, you can't compare Ancient Greece with USA and say "well other countries used slaves as well so how come they weren't as advanced?".

"Is Russia warmer than the UK? Is Mongolia warmer than France? How does this make sense? Didn't Egypt have more wealth than all of Europe at one time?"

I mentioned climate as a possible factor among many. Not a be all - end all.

"What was it that made them innovate?"

There are lots of possible reasons for that.

"What part of their culture made them have a strong work ethic?"

Obviously you didn't bother to read my post properly. I mention one part of the culture right in the next bullet point.

"Why is this? When did this change? Was there ever a time where Christian nations were behind Islamic ones or Protestant behind Catholic ones and if there was does this make your point invalid?"

Yes, I think so. The West were behind in many areas at one point. My point is still valid since I was comparing modern Christianity with modern Islam.

"Were they the only ones to close their borders?"
No. The benefits of free trade are sometimes exaggerated Im just saying it might have been a reason for China declining.

"If whites have a higher IQ than other races why wouldn't that justify racism? If Asians have a higher average IQ then why are Asian countries behind European ones in per capita GDP and not the other way around?"

Um, because there is something called basic human value which derives from other things than intelligence.
Also IQ differences between races have not been proven to my knowledge and is in my opinion in any case irrelevant when we discuss human value and human rights. For the record, I'm white and have met tons of non-whites who were much smarter than me.
Asia lags Europe because of possible other reasons. You need to read up on cause and effect.

"[Niall Ferguson is a politically correct boob. If it comes out on PBS, BBC or a major network it is PC bullcrap why didn't South Americans have property rights? Are all South American countries the same did Argentina, Brazil and Peru have the same structure in their governments when it came down to property rights?"

I don't agree with everything Ferguson says. Your question seems to imply yet again that you haven't quite understood that a social phenomena can have multiple causes.

"WTF?"
"No you haven't"

Now you're just trolling

"How was it illegal for the USA to take land from the American Indian? Was there an ICC that would take them to task with a world police? Where is your basis of this illegality? Was it legal then for the Olmec's to take over the Toltec's, then the Aztec's afterward? Did the law only apply to Europeans and not the American Indian? What about Arab and Turkish pirates who plundered the Mediterranean sea for slaves and loot can Italians take them to court? Why was it immoral for Europeans to conquer American Indians if they had been conquering each other for so long even taking each other as slaves and wiping each other out completely? In the wild might makes right and in a world with limited resources this is the law you are typing this with a full belly and in a climate controlled room with police protection this world is very different from the world the settlers knew. The island of Manhattan was purchased for some beads, mirrors and trinkets so they got something in return for much of the land the settlers took as it was purchased in fair trade for horses, whiskey, rifles, etc."

The absence of an ICC is irrelevant. The basis for the illegality is found in historic facts. The government killed, marginalized, starved and deceived the Natives and took their land. Sometimes agreements of deportations were made (which the Natives were pretty much forced to accept) but then broken by the government. Read Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee, for instance. Some of the questions you pose in the above paragraph I have already answered in this thread and as for the other questions, I'm sure you can figure out what my answer to them would be as well.

Would the purchase of Manhattan hold up in court? Or would it be found to be invalid and comparable to tricking a kid into selling you a car for peanuts? (Honest question - I don't know the answer).

"Which American Indian Tribes didn't kill each other or never had to kill whether in self defense or survival of the fittest? Any citations or proof? Is self defense murder? Was there a time when American Indians could live in a Garden of Eden or were they sometimes tempted to take from another tribe?"

You're the one who are trying to use internal Indians fightings to justify US government killing them. So you carry the burden of proof and should prove that
1) all Indians who were killed by the government were murderers themselves and
2) that murdering a murderer is always morally justifiable, especially under the horrific circumstances the Indians found themselves in and which forced them to fight back.

Good luck! Lol

"This still doesn't explain why they are poorer or what problems they have. At one time Argentina was the 4th wealthiest country in the world and challenged the US for hemispheric supremacy yet now they are a basket case with a history of coups and hyperinflation. Is all that the fault of the US? The first university in the hemisphere was in Mexico City the UNAM not Harvard in fact it had about a 70 year head start over Harvard so why is it totally overlooked now? Did the USA not do those things in Asia or Europe? Support coups, blockade or invade them? We bombed civilians in Dresden and they rebuilt it we nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki and 40 years later they try to conquer us with money. Didn't we treat Germany and Japan FAR worse than Latin America yet a generation later they challenge us again. Shit you can make the argument that Germany conquered Europe with the Euro now and they were bombed, invaded, partitioned and had their president forced to commit suicide yet they still are very powerful."

Libertarians love to bring up how Argentina was once one of the richest countries in the world and how socialism destroyed that. Socialism was an important negative factor but doesn't tell nearly the whole story. Argentina became rich mostly because they killed most of the non-Whites (who were poor) and replaced them with Spanish land-owners (who were very rich). Obviously that instantly made the country richer in materialistic terms. Then a second wave of immigrants from Italy started coming to the Argentina which at one point even outnumbered the Argentinians/Spanish. They were poor and easy to manipulate and also carried with them a culture of corruption from Italy. Perfect for the elite who went on to divide and conquer them. Which is why so see such stark political antagonism in the country now and in the 20th century.

Even if you bomb all the infrastructure in Japan, Germany and the US as well as killing a large percentage of their populations, they will still retain their human capital. Other parts of the world don't have as much human capital and therefore are more easily trapped in poverty and other problems.

"You haven't disproved anything the white man has heaped more good than bad just like any other population around the world. integrating economies, creating value there is nothing special about the white mans evil its no bigger or smaller than anyone else's the only difference is that they have been able to touch more people good or bad for a variety of reasons that can't be explained through simple PC propaganda since PC makes you and me stupid. There have been larger empires than the USA that didn't produce anything of value like the Mongolians the difference is the USA actually created something while they didn't."

You are right the white man has done good and bad things. The white man has systematically heaped misery on other peoples, but he's also systematically done good things. It's obviously not all black and white. I was merely refuting Samseau's claim which I interpreted to be just that.

Solo, what would be your solution, given the current status of the USA and the world in general?

Quote: (06-17-2014 06:21 AM)solo Wrote:  

Um, because there is something called basic human value which derives from other things than intelligence.
Also IQ differences between races have not been proven to my knowledge and is in my opinion in any case irrelevant when we discuss human value and human rights. For the record, I'm white and have met tons of non-whites who were much smarter than me.
Asia lags Europe because of possible other reasons. You need to read up on cause and effect.

The strange thing is that whenever scientists prove there to be racial and ethnic differences in average and median IQ, which by the way has been proven thoroughly through decades of IQ testing, then people will come out and attack it saying what you say. That there is such a thing as basic human value, which I completely agree with, and that is why we shouldn't even discuss the concept of biological race.

However, when we can all agree that a human has value regardless of intelligence, height, beauty or physical prowess, then when you and others refuse to acknowledge racial differences, it actually makes the implicit case that you don't actually consider humans to have fundamental equal value. If you did, you wouldn't be terrified of looking objectively at the differences between races. Do you see what I mean? By so strongly opposing examination, you actually show that you yourself rank people on how intelligent they are. That's on you, not on scientists and rational minds.

Of course, then you say that you've met foreigners smarter than you, which seems to say that you don't understand the concept of a 'normal distribution' with a median and standard deviation. What it means when scientists say lower IQ, it means lower median IQ usually. Did you know that men and women have almost comparable median IQ but the standard deviation is higher for men than for women? This means there are more men who are stupid than women, but also more men who are smart.

Of course, intelligence is only one factor in being successful as a person and even if intelligence is more important for a society than for a person, there are a lot of other traits which can be difficult to separate between culture and genetics. And to what degree does genetics influence culture or is it culture that influences genetics, by choosing which genes gets passed on?

There was just a recent study done, that showed that people from traditionally wheat producing societies had more and individual streak while people from rice producing societies had more of a collectivist streak. Not the farmers, but everyone. The study claimed this is because of the labor intensive way rice farming is done versus wheat farming. So over time, the individualist genes are bred out as the individualist is not as useful, and therefore high value, as the more collectivist inclined. This can explain why Asians are usually more collectivist and Europeans more individualist.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...ing-world/

Quote:Quote:

By contrast, the team found no support for two other theories in cultural psychology, which tries to explain how differences in the way we think are influenced by our culture or environment. One theory suggests that as societies become wealthier and more educated, their citizens become more self-reliant and shift toward analytical, independent thought.

What this means, when you un-pc it, is that these traits are genetic, not cultural. Keep in mind this is a chinese study on chinese and asian people. It has no racial bias.


That is Darwin 101. If you believe in evolution, don't you believe it afffects people too?

Quote: (06-15-2014 12:43 PM)Pacesetter20 Wrote:  

(06-14-2014, 09:42 PM)solo Wrote:  If you don't know where to begin, a suggestion is to begin by reading my post again: I said the only reason White America prospered *in the first place* was that they took the land from the Indians, either directly or indirectly. Of course hard work and freedoms were necessary like you say but all of that wouldn't have mattered if they didn't have any land to build the country on in the first place.

This assumption rests on the argument that all land acquired by early settlers was forcibly/illegally taken? What about land that was purchased (i.e. New York)?

Also, this also assumes that the Indians appeared there and didn't take it from someone else.

First of all, I thought it was Manhattan that was purchased (so a smaller area than New York, I think)? In any case, my argument doesn't rest on that assumption at all. Imagine how weakened the USA would have been it they had been forced to respect the nomadic tribes in all the areas that weren't acquired financially. Wanna build inter-state railways or highways? Oops, can't do that because you're not allowed to do construction on the Natives land. Sorry, you can't have your corn fields there. Too bad, you can't build your university there because that is a holy Indian ground. Things like that all the time. The more or less unrestricted access to land was pivotal in making America rich. This is not to take anything away from the hard work or innovations of the settlers which made America rich. Just pointing out that having access to land was a very important factor if not a prerequisite.

This is not even getting into other arguments such as how legally valid the purchases were. If I saw my fellows being killed and marginalized by an invader with superior weapons technology when they didn't accept the conditions of the bogus legal contracts, I might consider selling my land, too. Or like how some of the tribes had a slightly different view of property and territory since they were nomads.

Quote: (06-15-2014 12:43 PM)Pacesetter20 Wrote:  

(06-14-2014, 09:42 PM)solo Wrote:  If you don't know where to begin, a suggestion is to begin by reading my post again: I said the only reason White America prospered *in the first place* was that they took the land from the Indians, either directly or indirectly. Of course hard work and freedoms were necessary like you say but all of that wouldn't have mattered if they didn't have any land to build the country on in the first place.

This assumption rests on the argument that all land acquired by early settlers was forcibly/illegally taken? What about land that was purchased (i.e. New York)?

Also, this also assumes that the Indians appeared there and didn't take it from someone else.

Quote:Quote:

No, that's what *you* are saying. However others think differently and want to severely limit or even outright ban immigration completely (even possibly but not necessarily people on this thread).

I understand that the current official US policy is not one of closed doors and it's incorrect to claim I eluded it is in my post.

No that is what most people think, your using extreme minority opinions and trying to pass them off as common.

Notice I said "OTHERS think differently". If I was trying to pass it off as common, I would have eluded so and said something like: "many others" or "a common opinion is". I'm not knowledgable enough to judge how common such an opinion is in the USA, so I just put "others". Maybe next time I'll try to be more precise.

Quote: (06-15-2014 12:43 PM)Pacesetter20 Wrote:  

(06-14-2014, 09:42 PM)solo Wrote:  [quote]Quote:

I also understand that there are practical problems associated with free immigration if you consider the interests of US citizens. But that doesn't change the fact that denying entrance to people in need of coming to the US is dishonorable and hypocritical considering how the US government in the past paid no such consideration to the Natives when deciding the immigration quotas.

And you just agreed with me and proved my point in your first sentence.

We don't owe foreigners anything. If they want to come to this country, we welcome them, so long as they abide by the rules. Just because there may or may not have been injustices, doesn't mean that people who didn't experience those injustices should be rewarded.

Just because I'm intellectually honest and admit there are practical problems with free immigration doesn't prove your point at all, man. (Your point being to disprove my point, which is that I have no sympathy for White Americans who are anti-immigration). But maybe our opinions are less further away from each other than we think.

Now you claim you welcome those who want to come to the US as long as they abide by the rules? Really? Where can they sign up?

You know there are foreigners alive today who are still suffering in various ways from US foreign policy around the world right? If you think the US doesn't owe them anything that is nothing more than your opinion and, I would argue, falsifiable. However those people should NOT get their hopes up that they will ever get any kind of (even incomplete) reparation since that will not happen and the false hope will only further cement their current situation.

Quote: (06-15-2014 12:43 PM)Pacesetter20 Wrote:  

(06-14-2014, 09:42 PM)solo Wrote:  [quote]Quote:

In any case, if the US had stayed true to its founding principle of small government, it wouldn't have much of a Welfare State and immigration would be closer to a non-issue. Instead I suspect Americans now face a higher tax rate than what the English forced upon them and which was one of the reasons for their quest for independence.

Hypothetical situation, does not apply to current debate. But yes that is correct.

To me it applies since I think this is more or less what the US should do in order to solve the immigration issue.

Quote: (06-15-2014 12:43 PM)Pacesetter20 Wrote:  

(06-14-2014, 09:42 PM)solo Wrote:  [quote]Quote:

This is very convenient for anti-immigration conservatives. However it still doesn't change my point that being opposed to immigration as a White American is dishonorable and hypocritical: in the past the "freebies" (of sorts) was the land that lured the Europeans to emigrate. US government didn't care that the land had been largely stolen or taken when the Natives had died for various reasons directly related to the colonization, so I don't see why they should care that the welfare checks are stolen from the taxpayers also. (Well actually, I do see why they care - they wouldn't get reelected if they didn't - but I think I've made my point).

You still haven't explained why it is dishonorable and hypocritical, beyond your blatant racist and anti-American viewpoints.

Past sins don't justify present sins.

Even if you don't agree with my argument, understanding it should be fairly easy by reading my first post in this thread. But I'll explain it again for you since you seem like such a swell guy, calling me racist and all: The land the government took from the Natives was an important factor if not a prerequisite for the flourishment of America. Most settlers weren't guilty of killing the Indians and were just escaping poverty, famine and repression themselves. But their existance in America was still largely hinging on the government marginalizing, deporting and killing the Indians. As a consequence, today's White Americans are living in the richest country in the world as a direct result of the US government fucking over the Natives. Yet some of them want to deny the same opportunity to poor Latin Americans and others (many of whom are poor partially or completely because of US foreign policy in Latin America and the rest of the world, by the way). The country was not theirs or their ancestors to begin with, so they are in no moral position to make any call on who should be able to live there.

Then they hide behind the convenient argument that the US can't afford to recieve more immigrants because of the excessive Welfare State (a Welfare State they tend to largely oppose, by the way).

This is dishonourable and hypocritical and the reason why I have no sympathy for White Americans who complain about immigration.

Quote: (06-15-2014 12:43 PM)Pacesetter20 Wrote:  

(06-14-2014, 09:42 PM)solo Wrote:  [quote]Quote:

What I suspect you may be getting at though, is that *extreme* liberals with their bloated and excessive government is actually a much worse enemy to immigrants than conservatives. (Since high levels of immigration and an excessive Welfare State are mutually exclusive). That is correct IMO.

Now you are agreeing with me and saying that liberals are to blame.

Can you just admit I am right and you are wrong at this point and we can end this?

Lol you call me a racist, misinterpret my post and then just hope the discussion will be over?

Read my post again. I said "much worse enemy to immigrants than conservatives" meaning conservatives are an enemy to immigrants. Just another case of me pointing out something obvious which doesn't affect the discussion either way. That said, I would like to retract my statement about liberals being enemies to immigrants (let's see if you'll try to use this against me too). It's unfair to them, at least they have good intentions. It was a stupid statement on my part. It's just that their policy of a big Welfare State has an unintended negative consequences for some peoples' chances of immigrating.

Quote: (06-15-2014 12:43 PM)Pacesetter20 Wrote:  

(06-14-2014, 09:42 PM)solo Wrote:  [quote]Quote:

I would be happy to see the end of the US in its current form. It has waged wars on poor countries for decades and is now one of the leading feminist countries in the West. The U.S. government exists to protect the interests of U.S. citizens and taxpayers only in theory - in practice they fuck over everyone else but themselves, like most other governments. So I don't think its necessary to preserve what exists.

Yes, because you are an anti-American racist, its seethes through everything you post. You are probably from some poor country that was long ago a victim of colonialism, however, has been mired in poverty because of a victim mentality and lazy worth ethic prevents you from doing the hard work necessary to make a country great/rich. It's much easier to sit around and complain about colonialism, slavery (which haven't existed in over 100 years), or the big bag U.S. who wont let you come in and freeload than to actually improve your situation.

I want a country that looks out for its citizens first and foremost, I have no shame in that opinion.

Listen man, even though I obviously disagree with you, you don't strike me as someone with a particularly malicious opinion. Unfortunately I think I won't be able to change your mind despite giving it my best try. But at least you seem to admit that the US government fucked over the non-white populations. Believe me I've had many discussions with both North and South Americans who refuse to recognize even this and who believe that Europeans colonizing the Americas was a good thing for the Natives and Blacks since it "civilized them" and made them Christians and whatnot.

Resorting to name-calling and calling me a racist doesn't reflect that well on you IMO, but at the same time it's not that big of a deal and doesn't really affect me since it's so laughable. Seriously, it made me laugh. (And anti-American is just flat-out a compliment these days - reminds me how opponents to the war in Iraq were "unpatriotic").

For the record, I'm probably whiter than most White Americans and have been defending other peoples than my own in this thread (not based on their race, but on past injustices which still affect the present) so even if you don't agree with me you can't really discredit me by speculating that I'm from some ex colony.

Regarding my country of origin, you're wrong again.

There was a long period of contact between Europeans and Native Americans before the Pilgrims landed. (Fisherman coming to the New England coast, etc.) By 1620 something like 90% of the native population had died due to exposure to old world diseases to which they had no natural immunity.