[Duke Castile]

Gio, I like to think of myself as a noble savage too haha

And you're right, it's white people talking about shit they heard from someone else rather than finding the facts for themselves. As is pretty much the case all the time.

Keep me away from the firewater.

*Disclaimer: I heard there might be a chance that one of my cousin's great grandfather's was near an Indian once.

[speakeasy]

(02-06-2013 09:43 AM)solo Wrote:  

(02-06-2013 01:31 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  

Technically, the settlers did nothing "illegal" per se in settling here. And if they did, someone please show me the Native American immigration clause that stated such.

I'm not sure you thought this through or maybe I misunderstand. You're saying there was nothing illegal about the massacres, the forced displacements etc which brought about the death of countless Native Americans and which was necessary to enable many of the settlements? That was news to me. It was also news to me that somehow it falls on people who disagree with you to provide the proof, and that you are somehow relieved from the burden of proof, given how many historians who would disagree with you.

The vast majority of NAs died because they had no immunity to old world diseases. By some estimates upward of 90% of NAs deaths were due to disease, not slaughter. And like I said before, there were wars and displacements amongst NAs even before Colomubus showed up. Remember, Native Americans had a warrior culture. I don't see why the settlers were any different than just another tribe showing up on the block, albeit one that was more technically advanced. As we saw with the Aztecs, when the NAs were powerful and advanced, they can be every bit as brutal and repressive as ancient Rome. The desire for expansion and acquisition of new land and resources is ubiquitous. It wasn't particular to any certain part of the world. That's why in the end it makes no sense to me to get all pissy about it since all cultures did it. It's only been in the last 50 years of human history that we've began viewing colonialism as an evil. For the prior 10,000 years it was the norm and even desirable to grab as much shit for your nation as possible.

Quote:

Just read Bury my Heart at Wounded Knee. Unless that book is all made up, the US government broke lots of legal agreements with the Natives.

Yes, that's true of course. Treaties were broken left and right. But that's not what I was originally referring to. I was talking about whether it was actually illegal for settlers to be here in the first place. And to reiterate, it was a mixed bag. They had good relations and traded with some tribes, and they fought wars against others. The NAs didn't see themselves as one unified people against the white man as its often portrayed today. They saw themselves as their own nations and any rival tribe was as big a threat to them as a white settler.

Quote:

Disregarding the fact much of the European colonization was illegal, what is more important is that much of it was immoral. After all, feminism is legal today but that doesn't make it moral. Sure, when the Europeans *first* arrived, the Natives didn't have any legal papers saying the land was theirs but that is just Western legal practice. It was still theirs, though, through the tradition of having possessed that land for generations, something which I think would be recognized by a Western court if it happened today.

Native Americans had no concept of land ownership, so it's hard to say it was "theirs" in any sense that we understand the word today. If you told them back then that the land belonged to them they wouldn't have knowon what you were talking about. That's why they were tricked into selling Manhattan to settlers for some ridiculously cheap price. The idea that people can possess land just didn't make any sense to them. Nobody's arguing that the NAs were treated fairly, that issue is settled. What we're trying to reconcile is whether there's any valid parallel between settlers showing up in N. America and illegal immigrants coming across the border. And whether it's actually hypocrtical to oppose illegal immigration on the grounds that settlers came to N. America "illegally".

Quote:

Also, just because the Whites got help from some tribes, that doesn't legitimize killing innocent human beings.

Of course not. And that's not what I was saying.

[Giovonny]

(02-06-2013 03:39 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

Gio, I like to think of myself as a noble savage too haha

And you're right, it's white people talking about shit they heard from someone else rather than finding the facts for themselves. As is pretty much the case all the time.

Keep me away from the firewater.

*Disclaimer: I heard there might be a chance that one of my cousin's great grandfather's was near an Indian once.

I just made you an honorary member of my tribe. Our name is the "noble savages". We hunt (for pussy and money) in the concrete jungle.

I can't touch the "fire water" because I will end up in jail. I prefer the peace pipe.

Here is me interrupting one of Fisto's banging sessions:

(just watch the first 30 secs to see Fisto and his lady)

[Giovonny]

I don't blame the white man for taking over indian land. I give the white man credit for his ingenuity, ambition, aggression, and courage.

-----

Funny how many people think that everyone is lying about being part indian. Natives mixed with whites, blacks, and latinos.

In fact, the entire latino/hispanic race is basically a mixture of euro and native blood. The word "mexican" means "mixed".

There are huge populations of people mixed with indian blood. The creole of Louisiana, the mexican-indian mixes in arizona and new mexico, and other groups that mixed with indians.

All light skinned black people are mixed with euro and/or indian.

Many of our grand fathers and great grandfathers were fucking Pocahontas:



There are some beautiful indian mixtures:



I doubt Beyonce is lying about being part native.

[durangotang]

(02-06-2013 01:53 AM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

Japan is a massive debtor. Germany and China are both in much better shape, but the tea leaves tell us that this too can change, and it won't be a result of mass immigration alone.

Japan may have a lot of debt on the books, the difference with Japan is they owe over 90% of the debt to themselves. They are also the largest creditor nation in the world and have surpassed China in terms of U.S. T-Bill holdings. My point still stands that these are relatively homogenous, not diverse, nations who have done among the best in the world in trade. Massive domestic immigration wasn't necessary for any of these countries to establish effective trade ties. Throw South Korea in there as well. So no, a diverse population doesn't necessary help with trade over a homogenous one. If anything, diversity becomes a national security liability and sows the seeds for domestic ethnic strife.

Here is a great presentation to watch with Kyle Bass in which he discusses both Germany and Japan. For now, it doesn't look good for Japan:

[GameTheory]

(02-06-2013 01:51 AM)houston Wrote:  

I would say if you're going out of your way to protest at an illegal immigration rally, you probably don't like anyone with a Spanish last name or who has some color to their skin. I think I saw Brian in the video

lolzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[speakeasy]

Something else just dawned on me. That guy in the video seems to be for open borders. Most the illegal immigrants coming into the US are from Latin America. The thing is, Latin Americans treat Native Americans far worse than anyone does in the US. Whites here for whatever reason seem proud to say they are part Cherokee or something. They seem to feel genuinely guity about what their ancestors did to them and buy into the mythical status of Native Americans as noble, spiritual people in harmony with nature. There is affirmative action for Native Americans wanting to go to college and scholarships and grants to help them out. Whereas in Latin American, nobody gives a damn about them. Being indigenous is a major strike against you and you are relegated to the bottom of the totem pole. And there's no culture of political correctness in Latin America where people feel guilty about their plight. Even people who have a lot of indigenous blood try to downplay it and pass themselves off as mestizos instead. It all seems ironic to me.

[durangotang]

(02-06-2013 05:03 PM)GameTheory Wrote:  

The difference between this guy and most Americans is that he is intellectually honest and doesn't care about political correctness. He probably doesn't have the means to easily pick up and move and doesn't have a SWPL career to lose for his non-pc views. He is forced to deal with the reality of foreign infiltrators moving into his town or neighborhood and living 10 to an apartment, working for peanuts, and not caring to learn the native language (English) or customs. That is a reality that a person in any country would not like to deal with.

What SWPL's and other white people with money do is just leave. You know, white flight. They move to a new neighborhood and self segregate because they don't want to deal with the foreign culture, increased crime, and general second or third world way of doing things. Instead of doing a reality check and reconsidering their multiculturalist views, they self segregate and bury their head in the sand while professing the opposite. Rich white conservatives openly oppose immigration, but nobody wants to be considered racist, so they dance around the issue and make it about jobs. You better believe that their children aren't going to predominantly hispanic schools where the quality of education is brought down by Mexican children who don't speak English. How racist is that? To want to be with your own culture and speak your own language in your own country? The whole country wants that whether they will admit it or not.

Outside of schools, the workplace, and prisons where by law there is no segregation, people self segregate. Asians have Asian neighborhoods, white people live in white neighborhoods, and black people live in black neighborhoods. Wealthy black and hispanic people even prefer to live amongst their own despite the differences in wealth. People prefer to be with their own kind. Even when forced to be together, blacks, whites and asians typically self segregate in their social groups and they most certainly do in prisons. Even churches are the most segregated places you'll ever find.

In areas where poor people cannot easily move but are unable to segregate due to the law, such as urban schools, there are massive problems. When Mexican immigrants have sufficient numbers and begin to overwhelm a black majority, there are widespread brown on black riots.

Apparently people like to profess diversity, but nobody really wants it. When president Obama says "diversity is our greatest strength" does anyone really believe that? No. Minority groups just want the want the code word benefits of "diversity" and white people don't want to appear racist. If they are a minority they want affirmative action, discrimination laws, lax immigration laws, wealth redistribution and anything else they perceive to benefit their group. The country be damned. Democrats are jumping over each other for amnesty so numerically they will have a political majority for as far as the eye can see.

Nowhere in the history of the world has ethnic diversity been a national benefit, much less linguistic diversity. We are facing both with Mexican immigrants and massive hispanic immigration. Belgium may split into two different countries along linguistic lines between the French and Flemish. Catalonia and Basque country want independence from Spain. Consider the history of northern Ireland. It requires quite the authoritarian government to keep different ethnicities under a political entity as was evidenced by Yugoslavia or Czechoslovakia after the fall of the Soviet Union. What about the Iraqis and Kurds? The Turks and Armenians? The Hutsis and Tutsis?

Why the hell do you think Mexico is building a wall across their southern border with Guatemala? They know the score:



The fact remains that nations are an extension of similar ethnicity, language, and culture. Prior to multiculturalism and the Hart-Celler Act of 1965 in America, the United States had strict limits on immigration in the United States limited to mostly northern and western European countries. This allowed us to have a "melting pot" along lines of similar ethnicity and culture without much need for authority. When Mexican immigration increased too much we acted in our own interest and launched Operation Wetback.

In fact, our current immigration cannot even be compared to immigration prior to 1965 for this reason. We had a real country back then, and it worked.

Now we are becoming a tower of babel. Take California for example - bankrupt under the weight of Mexican immigration, divided among those who speak English and Spanish, voting ballots and drivers license forms in dozens of languages, and highly segregated neighborhoods along ethnic lines. Nobody feels at home. Oh, and those wonderful Mexicans openly advocate about taking back California. They will probably get it too - after all we are subsidizing their high birth rate.

RIP, America.

[Lemmo]

(02-06-2013 06:48 PM)durangotang Wrote:  

(02-06-2013 05:03 PM)GameTheory Wrote:  

The difference between this guy and most Americans is that he is intellectually honest and doesn't care about political correctness. He probably doesn't have the means to easily pick up and move and doesn't have a SWPL career to lose for his non-pc views. He is forced to deal with the reality of foreign infiltrators moving into his town or neighborhood and living 10 to an apartment, working for peanuts, and not caring to learn the native language (English) or customs. That is a reality that a person in any country would not like to deal with.

What SWPL's and other white people with money do is just leave. You know, white flight. They move to a new neighborhood and self segregate because they don't want to deal with the foreign culture, increased crime, and general second or third world way of doing things. Instead of doing a reality check and reconsidering their multiculturalist views, they self segregate and bury their head in the sand while professing the opposite. Rich white conservatives openly oppose immigration, but nobody wants to be considered racist, so they dance around the issue and make it about jobs. You better believe that their children aren't going to predominantly hispanic schools where the quality of education is brought down by Mexican children who don't speak English. How racist is that? To want to be with your own culture and speak your own language in your own country? The whole country wants that whether they will admit it or not.

Outside of schools, the workplace, and prisons where by law there is no segregation, people self segregate. Asians have Asian neighborhoods, white people live in white neighborhoods, and black people live in black neighborhoods. Wealthy black and hispanic people even prefer to live amongst their own despite the differences in wealth. People prefer to be with their own kind. Even when forced to be together, blacks, whites and asians typically self segregate in their social groups and they most certainly do in prisons.

In areas where poor people cannot easily move but are unable to segregate due to the law, such as urban schools, there are massive problems. When Mexican immigrants have sufficient numbers and begin to overwhelm a black majority, there are widespread brown on black riots.

Apparently people like to profess diversity, but nobody really wants it. When president Obama says "diversity is our greatest strength" does anyone really believe that? No. Minority groups just want the want the code word benefits of "diversity" and white people don't want to appear racist. If they are a minority they want affirmative action, discrimination laws, lax immigration laws, wealth redistribution and anything else they perceive to benefit their group. The country be damned. Democrats are jumping over each other for amnesty so numerically they will have a political majority for as far as the eye can see.

Nowhere in the history of the world has ethnic diversity been a national benefit, much less linguistic diversity. We are facing both with Mexican immigrants and massive hispanic immigration. Belgium may split into two different countries along linguistic lines between the French and Flemish. Catalonia and Basque country want independence from Spain. Consider the history of northern Ireland. It requires quite the authoritarian government to keep different ethnicities under a political entity as was evidenced by Yugoslavia or Czechoslovakia after the fall of the Soviet Union. What about the Iraqis and Kurds? The Turks and Armenians? The Hutsis and Tutsis?

Why the hell do you think Mexico is building a wall across their southern border with Guatemala? They know the score:



The fact remains that nations are an extension of similar ethnicity, language, and culture. Prior to multiculturalism and the Hart-Celler Act of 1965 in America, the United States had strict limits on immigration in the United States limited to mostly northern and western European countries. This allowed us to have a "melting pot" along lines of similar ethnicity and culture without much need for authority. When Mexican immigration increased too much we acted in our own interest and launched Operation Wetback.

In fact, our current immigration cannot even be compared to immigration prior to 1965 for this reason. We had a real country back then, and it worked.

Now we are becoming a tower of babel. Take California for example - bankrupt under the weight of Mexican immigration, divided among those who speak English and Spanish, voting ballots and drivers license forms in dozens of languages, and highly segregated neighborhoods along ethnic lines. Nobody feels at home. Oh, and those wonderful Mexicans openly advocate about taking back California. They will probably get it too - after all we are subsidizing their high birth rate.

RIP, America.

Good summary. Hard to even imagine how great the US could have been if the pre-1965 laws has stayed on the books and been enforced. Never have such immense natural, cultural and human resources been squandered so quickly.

[speakeasy]

^^ Wow. I had no idea Mexico was building a wall on their southern border. Yet they constantly berate us for our border security with them. Hypocrites.

[DarkTriad]

(02-05-2013 06:06 PM)Fitzgerald Wrote:  

(02-05-2013 05:09 PM)Emancipator Wrote:  

Hear the lady screaming "I"M PART CHEROKEE", can someone tell me the fascination of some to claim native american ancestry? I know a girl, who claims ancestry to a bunch of native tribes, often at opposing sides of the continent.

My grandmother is American Indian, but I'm just another whitey in appearance and culture. Uncle Sam (not the actual historical figure, but the generalized spirit of the gov't) kept the tribes fighting against each other for a while, instead of fighting him...

What kept them fighting each other all those centuries before Uncle Sam showed up?

[DarkTriad]

(02-06-2013 09:43 AM)solo Wrote:  

(02-06-2013 01:31 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  

Technically, the settlers did nothing "illegal" per se in settling here. And if they did, someone please show me the Native American immigration clause that stated such.

I'm not sure you thought this through or maybe I misunderstand. You're saying there was nothing illegal about the massacres, the forced displacements etc which brought about the death of countless Native Americans and which was necessary to enable many of the settlements? That was news to me. It was also news to me that somehow it falls on people who disagree with you to provide the proof, and that you are somehow relieved from the burden of proof, given how many historians who would disagree with you.

Just read Bury my Heart at Wounded Knee. Unless that book is all made up, the US government broke lots of legal agreements with the Natives.

Disregarding the fact much of the European colonization was illegal, what is more important is that much of it was immoral. After all, feminism is legal today but that doesn't make it moral. Sure, when the Europeans *first* arrived, the Natives didn't have any legal papers saying the land was theirs but that is just Western legal practice. It was still theirs, though, through the tradition of having possessed that land for generations, something which I think would be recognized by a Western court if it happened today.

Also, just because the Whites got help from some tribes, that doesn't legitimize killing innocent human beings. I'm sure you're aware that some Africans helped the White slave traders to ship over slaves to the New World. From their perspective, that was the only way to save themselfes from getting exterminated.

There was no Illegal Immigration, that was an invasion - we stole it fair and square!

But seriously, by the customs of every tribe that ever displaced a weaker people (that's pretty much every tribe of humanity), you ARE getting their land "legally" by their own traditions.

[DarkTriad]

(02-06-2013 07:11 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

^^ Wow. I had no idea Mexico was building a wall on their southern border. Yet they constantly berate us for our border security with them. Hypocrites.

Mexico is absolutely BRUTAL towards immigrants from the south (mass numbers of robberies, rapes etc.). They view America as their personal piggybank, and anyone else sliding up there is stealing their piece of the pie. I'm amazed this doesn't get more pres.

[KingCokeSnorter]

(02-06-2013 04:22 PM)Giovonny Wrote:  

I don't blame the white man for taking over indian land. I give the white man credit for his ingenuity, ambition, aggression, and courage.

-----

Funny how many people think that everyone is lying about being part indian. Natives mixed with whites, blacks, and latinos.

In fact, the entire latino/hispanic race is basically a mixture of euro and native blood. The word "mexican" means "mixed".

There are huge populations of people mixed with indian blood. The creole of Louisiana, the mexican-indian mixes in arizona and new mexico, and other groups that mixed with indians.

All light skinned black people are mixed with euro and/or indian.

Many of our grand fathers and great grandfathers were fucking Pocahontas:



There are some beautiful indian mixtures:



I doubt Beyonce is lying about being part native.

I'm not so sure about that.

The actress who you show above beyonce is Canadian she is half filipino half irish. She is not native at all. Her name is shey mitchell. As for beyonce, who knows, she lies about her age and plenty of other things, I wouldn't put it pass her to lie about her "native" ancestry. I always wonder how is it that all these white slave masters allowed indians onto their plantation to bang their women. But I've seen pure blooded Africans lighter than her when I was volunteering in rural africa. Particularly the Igbo, Igala and a bunch of other african tribes is known to have many light skinned people, as well as many southern african tribes like the one nelson mendela is from and the San tribes.


http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41...4bride.jpg

http://www.travel-pictures-gallery.com/p...op0006.jpg

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_maxgmf...o1_400.jpg

http://fresh9jafashion.files.wordpress.c...des-41.jpg

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9G...nch8lljowt

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9G...3j-r76LQcQ

http://realhistoryww.com/world_history/a...San_15.jpg

http://www.bio.davidson.edu/Courses/Immu...albino.gif

http://colorfoundation.files.wordpress.c...africa.jpg

One of the richest women in Nigeria belongs to yoruba tribe
http://www.ghanafilla.net/wp-content/upl...26x250.jpg
http://www.ghanafilla.net/wp-content/upl...wcov53.jpg

She is brazilian, took a race test and was 93% african

http://m.i.uol.com.br/celebridades/2010/...60x400.jpg

She is 70% european and about 17% black/african
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-YENLqUmIcZg/UI...1600/1.jpg

http://www.peaceau.org/uploads/mohamed-i...-union.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co...5-2007.jpg

http://www.ndigboatmidlands.com/pictures...003301.jpg

According to a muesuem in virginia I visited as much as 60% of African Americans have Igbo ancestry as they were the main group brought to America


http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/2003..._black.jpg

Black man takes race test and finds out he is 60% Indo-European 40% native American and 0% black.

http://www.nairaland.com/attachments/196...41d9d30d50

The reason I think there is skepticism about people claiming native ancestry are for the most part it is coming from people who are least likely to be mixed rather than the ones most likely. Ie. it is far more probable, statistically that George Bush settler ancestors on Plymouth Rock had mixed with native at some point, given the shortage of settler women or Rick Perry mix with native american given his ancestors being in Texas before the Texas Revolution. Yet these people claim to be entirely english/british stock. Then throw in the long amount of time and slavery and how can these people even track their 1/32th native ancestry. Especially when whites and blacks make up most of the population of the south and the natives are just a small amount of the population yet only 1 in 3 blacks have white ancestry from what I've read, I wonder how the natives would have even been able to get near a slave plantation when they were rounded up on the fringes and reserves to keep them away from whites.
Maybe because I am not from that region I don't understand, or maybe I am just not highly informed on the topic, but that is my impression.

[solo]

speakeasy,

"The vast majority of NAs died because they had no immunity to old world diseases. By some estimates upward of 90% of NAs deaths were due to disease, not slaughter. And like I said before, there were wars and displacements amongst NAs even before Colomubus showed up. Remember, Native Americans had a warrior culture. I don't see why the settlers were any different than just another tribe showing up on the block, albeit one that was more technically advanced. As we saw with the Aztecs, when the NAs were powerful and advanced, they can be every bit as brutal and repressive as ancient Rome. The desire for expansion and acquisition of new land and resources is ubiquitous. It wasn't particular to any certain part of the world. That's why in the end it makes no sense to me to get all pissy about it since all cultures did it. It's only been in the last 50 years of human history that we've began viewing colonialism as an evil. For the prior 10,000 years it was the norm and even desirable to grab as much shit for your nation as possible".

Just because all cultures did it, is no reason not to get pissy about it. People get pissy about all forced colonialism and genocides, not just this particular one. Many NA died from diseases that they contracted due to being forcibly displaced without adequate food, water and shelter. Many times they were promised those things in the reservations but the government failed to deliver. Also, the choice they had was either go to the reservation or die.

"Yes, that's true of course. Treaties were broken left and right. But that's not what I was originally referring to. I was talking about whether it was actually illegal for settlers to be here in the first place. And to reiterate, it was a mixed bag. They had good relations and traded with some tribes, and they fought wars against others. The NAs didn't see themselves as one unified people against the white man as its often portrayed today. They saw themselves as their own nations and any rival tribe was as big a threat to them as a white settler".

Yes, some settlements were legal, others were illegal. And the massacres and forced displacements etc were definitely illegal. So we can then establish that the country of the USA is illegal, at least in its current shape and form.

"Native Americans had no concept of land ownership, so it's hard to say it was "theirs" in any sense that we understand the word today. If you told them back then that the land belonged to them they wouldn't have knowon what you were talking about. That's why they were tricked into selling Manhattan to settlers for some ridiculously cheap price. The idea that people can possess land just didn't make any sense to them. Nobody's arguing that the NAs were treated fairly, that issue is settled. What we're trying to reconcile is whether there's any valid parallel between settlers showing up in N. America and illegal immigrants coming across the border. And whether it's actually hypocrtical to oppose illegal immigration on the grounds that settlers came to N. America "illegally"."

I think it's pretty obvious the land was theirs and that they understood this, given that they had possessed it for generations and were willing to defend it. In any case, whether or not a person is *aware* that something is his, is irrelevant from a legal perspective; stealing from a baby or a senile person is still stealing. Sure, in some cases they sold the land such as the example of Manhattan which you mention but they refused to sell many of their territories.
The irony and hypocrisy of today's descendants complaining about illegal immigrants when they themselves are the product of illegal immigrants is not lost to me, at least. In the video in the OP I think the protesters themselves tacitly acknowledge this, given how they fail to respond the man with any sort of arguments. They are not responsible for what some of their ancestors did, but if they were truly concerned with the LAW, they would rally to give back all the territories which were acquired illegally.

You are right all NA tribes were not peace-loving though. In some respects they did live in more harmony with nature however (eg the buffalo).

[Thomas the Rhymer]

(02-06-2013 03:59 PM)Giovonny Wrote:  

(02-06-2013 03:39 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

Gio, I like to think of myself as a noble savage too haha

I just made you an honorary member of my tribe. Our name is the "noble savages". We hunt (for pussy and money) in the concrete jungle.

I can't touch the "fire water" because I will end up in jail. I prefer the peace pipe.

Save me some of that peace pipe, I want to join your tribe.

[Giovonny]

(02-06-2013 07:46 PM)DarkTriad Wrote:  

we stole it fair and square!

I love that phrase. It's true sometimes.

We basically lost to a stronger tribe.

All is fair in love and war!

(02-06-2013 03:44 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

Native Americans had a warrior culture.

Thank you.

Liberal whites try to describe us as peaceful pussies just so they can call conservative whites "evil" for being imperialists.

We don't even know the difference between liberal whites and conservative whites. We will scalp a liberal just as fast as we will scalp a conservative. (just kidding)

(02-06-2013 08:03 PM)KingCokeSnorter Wrote:  

I'm not so sure about that.

You're right. There are no descendants of Native Americans. No white man ever fucked an indian girl, no spaniard ever fucked an indian girl, no black man ever fucked an indian.

No one ever got raped. If they did get raped, it was always by someone of their same race.

And, white slave owners did not fuck their slaves.

Race mixing did not happen.

This white conservative did not believe in race mixing, but he had a baby with black lady in 1925:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-...l-history/

But, they are probably lying right?

(02-07-2013 08:18 AM)Thomas the Rhymer Wrote:  

Save me some of that peace pipe, I want to join your tribe.

You got it. But, only if you take me to Durban and help me bang some of the mixed south african girls!!!

[Giovonny]

Some more native blood..

(allegedly)

[speakeasy]

solo Wrote:

I think it's pretty obvious the land was theirs and that they understood this, given that they had possessed it for generations and were willing to defend it. In any case, whether or not a person is *aware* that something is his, is irrelevant from a legal perspective; stealing from a baby or a senile person is still stealing. Sure, in some cases they sold the land such as the example of Manhattan which you mention but they refused to sell many of their territories.
The irony and hypocrisy of today's descendants complaining about illegal immigrants when they themselves are the product of illegal immigrants is not lost to me, at least.

How do you know this to be the case? How many people can truly trace their ancestors back to the Mayflower? The bulk of Europeans came here legally during the great migration wave of the 19th century when America was rapidly industrializing. This country had long since been established for generations at that point, so was that still illegal immigration? I won't include black Americans since that immigration was obviously involuntary. Are the Chinese that came over to build the railroad also some sort of illegal immigrant?

I think there's a difference between immigration and conquest. Immigration is when you move to a sovereign country and you become a part of that society. Conquest is when you completely replace the previously existing society with a new one and there is no assimilation into the prior existing nation. The settlers were not "immigrants" in any sense of the word that we understand. Like someone said in this thread, the Indians should be seen as a cautionary tale of what happens when a nation cannot secure its own borders.

Quote:

In the video in the OP I think the protesters themselves tacitly acknowledge this, given how they fail to respond the man with any sort of arguments. They are not responsible for what some of their ancestors did, but if they were truly concerned with the LAW, they would rally to give back all the territories which were acquired illegally.

Do you live in the US? If so why are you still living on stolen land? I'd respect people who make this argument if they sold their home, gave the money to the nearest Indian tribe and departed for their ancestral homeland wherever that is. At least they'd be consistent with their ideas. For that matter, no new immigrants should come here either, legally or illegally since they are further displacing Indians off their original homeland.

[speakeasy]

(02-06-2013 08:03 PM)KingCokeSnorter Wrote:  

(02-06-2013 04:22 PM)Giovonny Wrote:  

I don't blame the white man for taking over indian land. I give the white man credit for his ingenuity, ambition, aggression, and courage.

-----

Funny how many people think that everyone is lying about being part indian. Natives mixed with whites, blacks, and latinos.

In fact, the entire latino/hispanic race is basically a mixture of euro and native blood. The word "mexican" means "mixed".

There are huge populations of people mixed with indian blood. The creole of Louisiana, the mexican-indian mixes in arizona and new mexico, and other groups that mixed with indians.

All light skinned black people are mixed with euro and/or indian.

Many of our grand fathers and great grandfathers were fucking Pocahontas:



There are some beautiful indian mixtures:



I doubt Beyonce is lying about being part native.

I'm not so sure about that.

The actress who you show above beyonce is Canadian she is half filipino half irish. She is not native at all. Her name is shey mitchell.

Vanessa Hudgens is also half Irish and half Filipino and she's fly as hell. I'm starting to wonder if that's a magic mix?

[Teedub]

^

Guys, guys, remember that 'Irish' or 'Filipino' etc are nationalities, not races or ethnicities.

Edit: Technically, they could be ethnicities. As ethnicity is cultural...I think

[GameTheory]

(02-06-2013 07:53 PM)DarkTriad Wrote:  

(02-06-2013 07:11 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

^^ Wow. I had no idea Mexico was building a wall on their southern border. Yet they constantly berate us for our border security with them. Hypocrites.

Mexico is absolutely BRUTAL towards immigrants from the south (mass numbers of robberies, rapes etc.). They view America as their personal piggybank, and anyone else sliding up there is stealing their piece of the pie. I'm amazed this doesn't get more pres.

lolzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Excelsior]

(02-06-2013 06:48 PM)durangotang Wrote:  

Nowhere in the history of the world has ethnic diversity been a national benefit, much less linguistic diversity.

White America.

Quote:

Prior to multiculturalism and the Hart-Celler Act of 1965 in America, the United States had strict limits on immigration in the United States limited to mostly northern and western European countries.

...who were of various ethnicities, not all of which were very close to one another. There was a big gap between the more recent Italian/Irish migrants and more established American WASPs for most of their history together in this country. This gap was not really closed until the middle of the last century thanks to massive government intervention (WW2 and the GI Bill) and, in some part, the Cold War.

Quote:

Outside of schools, the workplace, and prisons where by law there is no segregation, people self segregate. Asians have Asian neighborhoods, white people live in white neighborhoods, and black people live in black neighborhoods. Wealthy black and hispanic people even prefer to live amongst their own despite the differences in wealth. People prefer to be with their own kind. Even when forced to be together, blacks, whites and asians typically self segregate in their social groups and they most certainly do in prisons. Even churches are the most segregated places you'll ever find.

I am just going to say this: racial diversity is not the core issue. Cultural diversity is the concern. Cultural similarities can transcend racial differences. American social dynamics have always seen race and culture tied at the hip, but it does not have to be this way.

I just want this point to be kept in mind. That is all I'm going to say.

[speakeasy]

Well I think we can all converge on the fact that the greatest thing about diversity is being able to fuck women of all races without having to hop on a plane.

[Screwston]

Should just send all those spics back to Mexico. If you got a Spanish last name and look illegal, you're out of here boy.