Jump to content

Is the term "settler" appropriate?


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, H10 said:

White people called themselves settlers for the longest of time.  What, now they don't want to call themselves that anymore because people are holding the settlers accountable for stealing indian land and enslaving african people?

We aren't all white, but all Canadians have 'settled' on Indigenous land. 

I think 'settlers' is a good reminder of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, jacee said:

We aren't all white, but all Canadians have 'settled' on Indigenous land. 

I think 'settlers' is a good reminder of that.

You can use it if you wish, but hopefully you recognize it's a euphemism when applied to the circumstances of most Canadians, and particularly those born here. I was born in Canada so by literal definition I'm clearly not a settler. To heed the tenets of an identity-based ideology may seem harmless but I tend to subscribe to the view that to do so amounts to mindless deference. You may prefer to defer. I don't.

Edited by turningrite
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, turningrite said:

1) You can use it if you wish, but hopefully you recognize it's a euphemism when applied to the circumstances of most Canadians, and particularly those born here.

2) I was born in Canada so by literal definition I'm clearly not a settler.

3) To heed the tenets of an identity-based ideology may seem harmless but I tend to subscribe to the view that to do so amounts to mindless deference.

4) You may prefer to defer. I don't.

1) How is it a euphemism ?  That seems to condemn 'most Canadians' if you are saying that the actual term should be worse.

2) Yes, also they are not Indians.

3) Philosophy tells us that all ideologies are identity-based.  

4) How should we work out what people are called ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, turningrite said:

You can use it if you wish, but hopefully you recognize it's a euphemism when applied to the circumstances of most Canadians, and particularly those born here. I was born in Canada so by literal definition I'm clearly not a settler. To heed the tenets of an identity-based ideology may seem harmless but I tend to subscribe to the view that to do so amounts to mindless deference. You may prefer to defer. I don't.

I was born here too, and quite a few generations of family.

Like it or not, white or not, we are all still settled on Indigenous land.

Do you prefer the term 'non-Indigenous' Canadian?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, jacee said:

We aren't all white, but all Canadians have 'settled' on Indigenous land. 

I think 'settlers' is a good reminder of that.

The more crap like this I see, the less sympathy I have for natives, and the less care I have for what happens to them on their isolated little reserves.

And the more I think Donald Trump is too liberal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/27/2018 at 3:58 PM, taxme said:

The word settlers was a word used at the time when Canada was being settled. White people do not use that word today because they are not settlers anymore. I am white and I was born here so I am not a settler. I am Canadian born and I am not an immigrant. An immigrant is someone who immigrates to another country. I did not. I guess that I am safe to call myself a native Indian also now. 

It is white people's status as immigrants which makes them settlers, as the white leader always say "we are a nation of immigrants" "We are all immigrants".

 

On 6/27/2018 at 3:58 PM, taxme said:

Where would North America be today if it were not for those white "settlers" who came to NA and settled and did something with the place. Do you honestly believe that today the native Indian population want to go back to the old Indian ways and days before the white man/woman came along? I doubt that very much. They have it a lot better because of old whitey today and they dam well know it too. 

It would probably be much much much richer. It would be a country with a small population, lots of natural resources without all the environmental rape. Why do they have to go back to anything, it is the whites who came here?

 

On 6/27/2018 at 3:58 PM, taxme said:

Black slavery still goes on in some Arab and African countries today.  And all of those past slave owners were black and Arab and were all too willing to abduct and black people and sell them off to the highest bidder. So, don't make it sound like black slavery was a white man's creation. Yes, it was wrong for white people to get involved in the slavery business but it was the white man who eventually stopped the slave trade into America and eventually give the blacks their freedom. But do you see thousands of blacks leaving America for an African country today? Nope, because they know that they have it better living in a white country rather than if they lived in an African country. This constant bashing and trying to constantly remind white people by people like you needs to stop. The slave days are over. Accept and live with it. To continue on with this racism towards white people is as far as I am concerned promoting hatred and maybe even violence towards white people. Give it up. :rolleyes: 

Why were good white people going to Arab and African nations to buy slaves?  And if whites are so good why did they not only keep the slaves enslaved but beat, rape, murder, torture and practice discrimination for hundreds of years in all areas of society against them?

Whites did not stop slavery in the Americas and blacks in Americas largely freed themselves from slavery, most whites supported slavery and fought hardto maintain it.

Already tried, Marcus Garvey, and he was arrested by the American government on the requests of the French ambassador because the French and British viewed it as a threat to have millions of African Americans with recent military training and development experience to return to the continent and fight them and insisted the US government stop them from leaving.

 

Further many African Americans rightly point out why should they be the ones to leave when they built America, the built the white house, the congress, the supreme court and the capitol, they built UVA and Georgetown and Americas most prestigious institutions.

 

Slave days are not over because the universities and prisons are trying to defend slavery in a case before the appellate court right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/27/2018 at 4:11 PM, turningrite said:

White people in North America may in some cases describe their ancestors who moved here centuries ago as settlers, particularly if those ancestors farmed upon arriving. The most common designation for descendants who arrived over the past century and even for many who arrived well before that is "immigrant." My mother arrived in Canada in the early 1950s as a landed immigrant and never referred to herself as a settler. Beyond referring to ancestors who arrived long ago, the term is seldom if ever used by contemporary Canadians to describe themselves - except perhaps by left "progressives" who'd rather defer to Indigenous sensibilities and ideology. Rather, when applied to contemporary Canadians, it's an arbitrarily assigned and quasi-racial designation that often appears intended to denigrate the legitimacy of the Canadian majority and the society it has established. Further, "Indian" land wasn't technically "stolen" because there was no legal structure in place at the time to recognize or enforce ownership rights. Interestingly, many Indigenous activists today assert that they don't even recognize the concept of property rights. In the absence of a legally regulated property regime, the British asserted sovereignty over once Indigenous-occupied lands. It may not have been fair, but history has seldom been fair. Tribal groups throughout history have in every part of the world and among all races simply displaced other tribal groups. And people have been enslaved throughout history by people of many races. History isn't a simple binary contrast between bad Europeans and victimized others. Perhaps you might read up on these things.

History is simple.  Bad white man murder, rape, stoleand killed, against the good brown man.  White racist of today want to defend said, murder, rape and killing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, H10 said:

History is simple.  Bad white man murder, rape, stoleand killed, against the good brown man.  White racist of today want to defend said, murder, rape and killing.

Thanks for proving my point, which in this instance is that you apparently know little about history. Throughout recorded human history, until the 20th century, the philosophy of "might is right" dominated relationships between peoples. Pushing aside, enslaving and assimilating existing populations is a hallmark of human existence in almost every region of the world. Those who've avoided external dominance and enslavement, as for instance did the Japanese following contact with the West prior to the 20th century, weren't in general more humane in their treatment of others under their control when they got the chance. Morality is not the exclusive domain of any race or nationality. Neither is villainy. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Edited by turningrite
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, H10 said:

History is simple.  Bad white man murder, rape, stoleand killed, against the good brown man.  White racist of today want to defend said, murder, rape and killing.

Here is more history. Blacks, Asians, Arabs did the same things to other races of people that they had conquered. So,what's your point here?  Even native Indians of Canada did the same thing to other Indians from other tribes. So, what's your point? 

I do not see anywhere where white people are wanting to promote hatred or violence towards anyone or want to defend rape and murder against anyone today. I have read plenty of stories where blacks and Arabs continue to this day raping and killing people. So quit with this bleeding heart guilt ridden liberalism bs of yours that only of white people can and are racist. By you continuing to say this is promoting hatred or maybe even violence towards white people. Are you ready to admit that non-whites can be rapists and killers also? There clearly can only be one answer from you? 

Edited by taxme
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, H10 said:

It is white people's status as immigrants which makes them settlers, as the white leader always say "we are a nation of immigrants" "We are all immigrants".

 

It would probably be much much much richer. It would be a country with a small population, lots of natural resources without all the environmental rape. Why do they have to go back to anything, it is the whites who came here?

 

Why were good white people going to Arab and African nations to buy slaves?  And if whites are so good why did they not only keep the slaves enslaved but beat, rape, murder, torture and practice discrimination for hundreds of years in all areas of society against them?

Whites did not stop slavery in the Americas and blacks in Americas largely freed themselves from slavery, most whites supported slavery and fought hardto maintain it.

Already tried, Marcus Garvey, and he was arrested by the American government on the requests of the French ambassador because the French and British viewed it as a threat to have millions of African Americans with recent military training and development experience to return to the continent and fight them and insisted the US government stop them from leaving.

 

Further many African Americans rightly point out why should they be the ones to leave when they built America, the built the white house, the congress, the supreme court and the capitol, they built UVA and Georgetown and Americas most prestigious institutions.

 

Slave days are not over because the universities and prisons are trying to defend slavery in a case before the appellate court right now.

1. You are really starting to become an exercise in futility. I am not a settler or an immigrant. I was born here and so that does not make me an immigrant, silly. Look up the word immigrant in the dictionary, silly. Our white Canadian buffoon leaders are a useless bunch of teats. By saying that we are a nation of immigrants is true but that can only be applied to the people who immigrate from other countries too Canada. I cannot be considered an immigrant one bit. We are not all immigrants. Got it now? 

2. How would Canada be much any richer if the white man/woman did not come to Canada? It would still be all bush and there would still be Indians killing other Indians.

Well duh. We all should know that the population of Canada would not be as high as it is today if the white people did not float their way over here from Britain and Europe. :rolleyes: But all those resources and environmental rape that your ancestors did to this country actually gave you a homeland and a home to live and work and play in. If you want to play this Indian victim blame game on white people well maybe you should get the hell out of Canada and go back to where your ancestors came from. That should help save some resources and less raping of the environment. I am sure the native Indians will appreciate you leaving Canada. If you are lucky, maybe they will be at the airport to see you off. Goodbye. 

3. Why were blacks and Arabs abducting their own people and selling them off to the highest bidder? They started up the slavery business. Look silly, all races have and done lots of bad things to other people. Today none of what you said is happening today. But it would appear to me as though that you only want to point out the bad things that white people have done in the past but will not admit that other races of people were just as bad. The white man/woman have been paying plenty of reparations and tax dollars for years to make Indians and blacks happy and contented to try and make their lives better. 

Whites did stop slavery, What do you think all the fighting that was going on between the north and the south in the USA was all about? Eventually, the north won the battle and the blacks were freed from slavery. It was not the blacks that built up America, silly. It was the time and effort and money and the ingenuity of white people that really built up America. Do you honestly believe that blacks could have built a railroad from coast to coast or vehicles to drive on roads that were built by white people in vehicles? Even native Indians could ever come up with those ideas. America or Canada would not be where it is today if it were not for white people. Plain and simple. Live with it. 

4. What case is before the courts? Over. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, taxme said:

Are you ready to admit that non-whites can be rapists and killers also? There clearly can only be one answer from you? 

Who says non-whites shouldn't reconcile their past too,  and what's wrong with being the first thru the gate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/26/2018 at 8:22 AM, turningrite said:

I've noticed an increasing tendency in mainstream media to adopt the term "settler" in reference both to multi-generational (i.e. Caucasian or white) Canadians as well as to mainstream Canadian society (i.e. "settler society" or "settler culture"). Politicians and ex-politicians, too, have fallen into this odious negative identity trap. I consider the overly broad use of this term to be offensive and in some circumstances derogatory. If it's objectionable to refer to members of visible minorities as "immigrants," particularly when they're second generation or multi-generational, why on earth is it acceptable to characterize white Canadians, whose ancestors in some cases may have arrived in the country over the past few generations, as settlers? Isn't this a form of racial categorization and oversimplification? In many cases, it seems to me to amount to reductionist hypocrisy.

"Settler" is, to me, one who sets foundation to location rather than to the older transient life of hunting and gathering. We need to divorce the idea that settling nor the hunting/gathering life were actually 'styles' or cultures as most think today. 

The word I hear more often being espoused with loaded derogatory meaning upon the Caucasian  European descendant is "colonisers" rather than settlers.

[But this is has some justification when you consider even this site keeps demanding correction of our spelling to the British Imperialist standards. Most of us in North America don't spell the "z" sound with an "s" , for example, but is imposed colony-style to do this in the spell-checker annoyingly!]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/26/2018 at 12:41 PM, Argus said:

Where have you noticed that? The only people I see using it are the most brainless of progressive morons.

"Progressive"  opposes "conservative"; the identity political problems are "regressive" and a symptom of a rise in conservative thinking but in segregated cultures. So you mistake the problem of the left as intrinsic to the problem when it is actually due to the increasing "right" in a collectivist form. The conservatives initiated and embraced the concept of "identity" as a belief that one's genetic roots are linked to their parents environmental behavior....most specifically religion. 

So this problem is NOT about progress but regress, .....using modern identities as though they were inherent properties that should be conserved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/26/2018 at 12:57 PM, Bonam said:
On 6/26/2018 at 12:52 PM, turningrite said:

Actually, I think the trap rests in accepting the terminology. It generally accompanies other historical assumptions and ideological baggage, including loaded language like "cultural genocide" as if the ideology is accepted fact. I don't consider myself a settler. I was born here. My ancestors, French, Irish and Portuguese, had little or nothing to do with the establishment of British colonial governance on the territory that is now Canada. If visible minority immigrants and their descendants seek exemption from the concept, including on grounds that they are/were victims of British colonialism, why can't I claim the benefit of such apparently redeeming history?

It's all irrelevant. Whether one's ancestor was British, Irish, Russian, or Chinese, whether one's ancestor was a colonist or a refugee, bears no relevance to the moral worth, responsibilities, or obligations of the current generation. People are people. They are individuals. And they (obviously) had no influence on events that happened before their lifetime and thus bear no responsibility for them. Period. Any ideology that seeks to fault people for the sins of their ancestors is inherently flawed. 

I add that "any ideology that seeks to favor people for the benefits of their ancestors is inherently flawed." 

People want to claim 'ownership' to a kind of copyright or trademark to those things that empower them but demand others simultaneously dismiss the derogatory associations as a fault of us all. It is due also to our present beliefs in capitalist societies based upon limited liability in corporate cultures: that we should rightfully inherit benefits but not debts.

 

[For those uninformed, a "corporation" is set up to allow one to invest in and benefit from, but NOT lose anything MORE than that investment should the company become abusive or default. They just go bankrupt at worse and distribute the cost to the whole of society.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, taxme said:

1. You are really starting to become an exercise in futility. I am not a settler or an immigrant. I was born here and so that does not make me an immigrant, silly. Look up the word immigrant in the dictionary, silly. Our white Canadian buffoon leaders are a useless bunch of teats. By saying that we are a nation of immigrants is true but that can only be applied to the people who immigrate from other countries too Canada. I cannot be considered an immigrant one bit. We are not all immigrants. Got it now? 

 

 

Quote

2. How would Canada be much any richer if the white man/woman did not come to Canada? It would still be all bush and there would still be Indians killing other Indians.

Well what you would have is a pan Indian state with a low population.  Like we see countries who were less developed historically like Germany, Thailand, etc making large gains. Even if the Indians didn't become a state of the art society, with their low population and high resources, they'd be able to bring in foreign firms and use that wealth to get rich.  You know, like the saudis and emiratis and Kuwaitis and Qataris do.  It didn't matter the illiteracy rate in UAE was over 70% a few decades ago, they had resources to sell and now live a fabulously rich lifestyle.

 

Quote

Well duh. We all should know that the population of Canada would not be as high as it is today if the white people did not float their way over here from Britain and Europe. :rolleyes: But all those resources and environmental rape that your ancestors did to this country actually gave you a homeland and a home to live and work and play in. If you want to play this Indian victim blame game on white people well maybe you should get the hell out of Canada and go back to where your ancestors came from. That should help save some resources and less raping of the environment. I am sure the native Indians will appreciate you leaving Canada. If you are lucky, maybe they will be at the airport to see you off. Goodbye. 

Isn't it you white people who should go back to where they came from, not the Indian people who were here first?

 

Quote

3. Why were blacks and Arabs abducting their own people and selling them off to the highest bidder? They started up the slavery business. Look silly, all races have and done lots of bad things to other people. Today none of what you said is happening today. But it would appear to me as though that you only want to point out the bad things that white people have done in the past but will not admit that other races of people were just as bad. The white man/woman have been paying plenty of reparations and tax dollars for years to make Indians and blacks happy and contented to try and make their lives better. 

To my knowledge, white Africans and arabs and jews were running the African slave trade from top to bottom.  Arabs were not enslaving other arabs but other non-arabs and non-muslims. Further we don't live in those other countries so its useless to argue about them, and most of those African /arab states no longer even exist as whites destroyed with subsequent colonization. Other races did bad, but not anywhere close to what whites have done.  There is no Native Indian version of Hitler, or transatlantic slave trade.  Face it, whites are the cruelest.  Given that blacks pay more taxes than whites but don't get anything like Indians and whites, I don't see how that is possible.  

 

Quote

Whites did stop slavery, What do you think all the fighting that was going on between the north and the south in the USA was all about? Eventually, the north won the battle and the blacks were freed from slavery. It was not the blacks that built up America, silly. It was the time and effort and money and the ingenuity of white people that really built up America. Do you honestly believe that blacks could have built a railroad from coast to coast or vehicles to drive on roads that were built by white people in vehicles? Even native Indians could ever come up with those ideas. America or Canada would not be where it is today if it were not for white people. Plain and simple. Live with it. 

 

Whites did not stop slavery, they just couldn't sustain it any longer in the face of widespread opposition and rebellions from African Americans armed and fighting off whites.  The north fought the south because they feared the fighting would get out of control, spread north and overrun the north. As such, the north then rounded up african americans en masse and mass executed/genocided them after winning the civil war. aka "punchbowls". Whites did not hae ingenuity, that is why they bought slaves.  Whites in America didn't even have money either, that is why they had to steal land and kidnap slaves, they couldn't pay for it, Europe dumped its rejects onto the new world.  Whites didn't build roads, or railroads,or vehicles, it was all done by african americans.  In fact, one of the main arguments from organized labour (white workers) back then was that slavepower was "stealing their jobs".

 

Actually America and Canada would be more wealthy without white people.  Britain, France, Spain and Netherlands looted the wealth of North America for centuries to the point that even the whites here demanded independence from the looting and corruption of white europeans.

 

14-1_Page_43_Image_0001.jpg

 

Quote

4. What case is before the courts? Over. 

 

NCAA, arguing student athletes should not be paid because they are essentially slaves.

Edited by H10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

"Progressive"  opposes "conservative"; the identity political problems are "regressive" and a symptom of a rise in conservative thinking but in segregated cultures. So you mistake the problem of the left as intrinsic to the problem when it is actually due to the increasing "right" in a collectivist form. The conservatives initiated and embraced the concept of "identity" as a belief that one's genetic roots are linked to their parents environmental behavior....most specifically religion. 

So this problem is NOT about progress but regress, .....using modern identities as though they were inherent properties that should be conserved.

They might have, generations ago. But it is the Left which is drawing it up and instilling new levels of vitriol, bitterness and prejudice into it today. Their beliefs are not driven by an arrogance of superiority but the anger of resentment and jealousy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Argus said:

They might have, generations ago. But it is the Left which is drawing it up and instilling new levels of vitriol, bitterness and prejudice into it today. Their beliefs are not driven by an arrogance of superiority but the anger of resentment and jealousy.

What a complete pile of shit. The left has only recently started throwing it back in right wingers faces. The bellicosity of our times is entirely the result of sphincters like  Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter.

Whatever else it is the left believes in putting up with the right wing is not on the menu anymore. Better get used to it.

Edited by eyeball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, eyeball said:

What a complete pile of shit. The left has only recently started throwing it back in right wingers faces. The bellicosity of our times is entirely the result of sphincters like  Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter.

 

False....if it has to be American politics that always informs your perspective, at least get it right.  The U.S. "left" has a long history of "bellicosity".

Besides....the same could be found much closer to home in the likes of Heather Mallick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, eyeball said:

Who says non-whites shouldn't reconcile their past too,  and what's wrong with being the first thru the gate?

Well, what are they waiting for? Funny thing though? They do not appear to want to do so. The white people have gone thru the gate and now it is their turn. It is their turn to admit that Indians killed other Indians and kept Indian slaves and blacks have killed blacks and been involved in the slave business. But all white people ever hear or get from the left wing liberal media over and over is about what white people have done in the past. I have no problem in saying that I am fed up with it. Whites have done their fair share of admitting to their wrongs. Enough already. Quit trying to make the white man/woman angry. Just saying. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, H10 said:

 

 

Well what you would have is a pan Indian state with a low population.  Like we see countries who were less developed historically like Germany, Thailand, etc making large gains. Even if the Indians didn't become a state of the art society, with their low population and high resources, they'd be able to bring in foreign firms and use that wealth to get rich.  You know, like the saudis and emiratis and Kuwaitis and Qataris do.  It didn't matter the illiteracy rate in UAE was over 70% a few decades ago, they had resources to sell and now live a fabulously rich lifestyle.

 

Isn't it you white people who should go back to where they came from, not the Indian people who were here first?

 

To my knowledge, white Africans and arabs and jews were running the African slave trade from top to bottom.  Arabs were not enslaving other arabs but other non-arabs and non-muslims. Further we don't live in those other countries so its useless to argue about them, and most of those African /arab states no longer even exist as whites destroyed with subsequent colonization. Other races did bad, but not anywhere close to what whites have done.  There is no Native Indian version of Hitler, or transatlantic slave trade.  Face it, whites are the cruelest.  Given that blacks pay more taxes than whites but don't get anything like Indians and whites, I don't see how that is possible.  

 

 

Whites did not stop slavery, they just couldn't sustain it any longer in the face of widespread opposition and rebellions from African Americans armed and fighting off whites.  The north fought the south because they feared the fighting would get out of control, spread north and overrun the north. As such, the north then rounded up african americans en masse and mass executed/genocided them after winning the civil war. aka "punchbowls". Whites did not hae ingenuity, that is why they bought slaves.  Whites in America didn't even have money either, that is why they had to steal land and kidnap slaves, they couldn't pay for it, Europe dumped its rejects onto the new world.  Whites didn't build roads, or railroads,or vehicles, it was all done by african americans.  In fact, one of the main arguments from organized labour (white workers) back then was that slavepower was "stealing their jobs".

 

Actually America and Canada would be more wealthy without white people.  Britain, France, Spain and Netherlands looted the wealth of North America for centuries to the point that even the whites here demanded independence from the looting and corruption of white europeans.

 

14-1_Page_43_Image_0001.jpg

 

NCAA, arguing student athletes should not be paid because they are essentially slaves.

Indeed, there  were many people involved in the slave trade but all the left wing liberal media like to talk about is the white involvment in the slave trade business. 1. The native Indians could not bring in foreign firms and use their resources to get rich because the native Indians at the time did not even know that white people existed until the white man showed up. Duh. 

2. Well, we are here now so live with it. Maybe if you don't like it here now maybe it is you who should leave? At least white people did something with the place that has benefited you, eh? The native Indians can't go back to anywhere because they were born here. They were not immigrants just like me. We both were born here. 

3. Indeed, there has been many different races of people of different backgrounds that were involved in the slave trade business. But all I ever hear from the left wing anti-white liberal media is that slavery was the creation of white people. And because of it many white people now go around an have been made to feel guilty over what other white people did in the past. White people should not feel guilty for what others did in the past. They had nothing to do with it. Should white people fell guilty over what Stalin did to his people and his trying to dump communism on the world? It is only people like yourself who are always out there trying to make white people feel guilty about past white sins. Enough already. I am pretty sure that native Indians and other races of people had their own versions of Stalin. Whites were the cruelest my azz. What the Muslims do to other non-Muslims and even their own is dam cruel. White people don't go around chopping heads off or throwing gays off of roofs blindfolded. You better start to think before you speak. Curious? Are you white? Just asking so I know as to where and to whom I am dealing with here. Over to you.

4. What the hell are you talking about? Whites indeed had plenty to do with stopping slavery. Hello or goodbye. :unsure: 

5. It was with white brains, intelligence, ingenuity, creativity, artistic and generally very good and hard workers that have made North America wealthy. Indians didn't even have or use money to do business with. And what the hell did Indians do that you would consider to be greater than what white men/women have done to North America anyway? The white people did not come to North America to loot because at the time they did not know as to what there was too loot. They were just looking for a new land to discover to live and build on and which made Indian lives more civilized and made better for them all. Sure white people did bad things but white people are not the exception to doing things bad. Why don't you tell us about some of the bad things non-whites have done to their own people and the world? Go ahead make your day. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

False....if it has to be American politics that always informs your perspective, at least get it right.  The U.S. "left" has a long history of "bellicosity".

Besides....the same could be found much closer to home in the likes of Heather Mallick.

Pffft, Limbaugh started the fight with the left long long before Mallick ever showed up on the scene.

In any case I think its hilarious that the right-wing imagines itself as the one that's under assault.  

Quote

 

Are rightwing pundits right that America is on the brink of a civil war?

Lately on the right, a sense has been developing that the American project is heading for a profound, perhaps bloody crisis. More and more, we hear talk of “civil war” – some say we have already embarked on a “cold” one.

The Guardian

 

Got popcorn?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Pffft, Limbaugh started the fight with the left long long before Mallick ever showed up on the scene.

 

 

Examples like the Black Panther Party didn't need no steenkin' Rush Limbaugh to get the party started.

When spouting all things American....expand your time horizon to get a better perspective.

150px-Fist.svg.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...