| Welcome to Exit Mundi Forums. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Good Ol' American Genocide; Would you change it? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Nov 24 2006, 06:02 AM (431 Views) | |
| piercehawkeye45 | Nov 24 2006, 06:02 AM Post #1 |
|
Franklin Pierce
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Since this choice would affect Americans more than non-Americans, I decided to split the choices into two groups. Please ellaborate on choice. Postive effects of Americans expanding throughout the continent versus negative effects of Native genocide. Also, please state what you think the world would be like if the Americans did stop expanding at the 13 colonies and Mississippi River. |
|
Dropped the atomic bomb let them know that it's real Speak soft with a big stick do what I say or be killed I'm America! I have found the enemy and he is us. | |
![]() |
|
| Altanese | Nov 24 2006, 06:15 AM Post #2 |
|
Apocalyptic Usher
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
If 'Americans' didn't force them onto reservations and steal their lands, the Spanish, British, and maybe French would have done it for us. Also, I didn't vote. |
| Deep unspeakable suffering may well be called a baptism, a regeneration, the initiation into a new state. | |
![]() |
|
| DirkNL | Nov 24 2006, 02:04 PM Post #3 |
|
Horrific poster
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Voted to stop expanding till Missisipi (Non-American), but the truth is that I would actually want to have the colonists and the Native Amercians to live together, instead of taking eachother's turf. -Dirk |
![]() Hail the wallflipping monochrome computer thingy 98% of the internet population has a Myspace. If you're part of the 2% that isn't an emo bastard, copy and paste this into your sig. | |
![]() |
|
| Necronomicon | Nov 24 2006, 03:09 PM Post #4 |
![]()
omar comin' yo
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I'd want the natives to band together under some great uniting general and burn all the ships that tried to make port. Edit: It would make sense if the uniting general was from the future and knew what the score would be. Edit Edit: I know it wouldn't make sense due to the time-travel aspect. Sod off. |
| omar yo. omar comin | |
![]() |
|
| Tom Joad | Nov 25 2006, 01:26 AM Post #5 |
|
Gap tooth so my dick's got to fit.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Frankly I don't really know. I love my cushy American life, but I hate the fact that it was built upon native American blood. Oh well, what empire didn't crack a few eggs? |
| |
![]() |
|
| Duncan | Nov 26 2006, 09:32 AM Post #6 |
|
Crazy Doctor's Apprentice
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
And by "few eggs" am I correct in assuming several million people. (Having trouble naming an empire, by the way. Think you could help me out?) Morally, we should have let the natives keep their land. Or, at least not have screwed them over with our treaties. |
![]() |
|
| piercehawkeye45 | Nov 26 2006, 08:45 PM Post #7 |
|
Franklin Pierce
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The Spartans trained their soldiers just to keep rule over the Helots. Rome basically did the same thing as the United States as well. |
|
Dropped the atomic bomb let them know that it's real Speak soft with a big stick do what I say or be killed I'm America! I have found the enemy and he is us. | |
![]() |
|
| Tom Joad | Nov 27 2006, 01:15 AM Post #8 |
|
Gap tooth so my dick's got to fit.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Directly killing natives is bad. Breaking contracts with them is bad. But signing contract with them that they agree with and they are not forced to comply with are alright. Even if we buy Manhattan from them for a bottle of whisky and 3 glass beads. |
| |
![]() |
|
| NeoAegis | Nov 27 2006, 01:30 AM Post #9 |
![]()
Israel thug life
![]()
|
And thus why corporations are considered evil... |
![]() ![]() Exit Mundi Post of the Year | |
![]() |
|
| Duncan | Nov 27 2006, 02:23 AM Post #10 |
|
Crazy Doctor's Apprentice
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Of course, one could argue that the US played a major roll in stopping Hitler in WW2, theoretically saving the world from Fascism (at least the kind that isn't hidden behind the facade of a regular government). Assuming, of course, we also ignore the post war agreements also led by the US that set the stage in the first place... Bad example... My point is, the United States has given billions in financial aid and used to fight for very noble causes. Do the lives we've saved counter act the lives we've taken to build our empire? |
![]() |
|
| Altanese | Nov 27 2006, 11:36 AM Post #11 |
|
Apocalyptic Usher
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Oh yes, America played a major role. But really, Britian and Russia would have beat Hitler without us. After all, we hardly helped enough to make a big difference in the Battle for Britian, and no one did a damn thing to help Russia, and; although they took more losses than ANYONE in the war; they kicked the most ass. The war in the Pacific? Well that would have been harder, but once Hitler fell the Russians would have still swept through Manchuria in a short amount of time, and Britian would be able to focus it's full naval and arial strength on the islands of the Pacific. Then the two would meet in Japan after a lengthy invasion, and ther would be a seperation of 'Communist' North Japan (Hokkaido and a few other small islands), and Capitalist South Japan.
Wait, post WW1 agreements which led to WW2?
When has the United States EVER fought for 'noble' reasons? We've never fought anyone if it didn't make us richer and more powerful, and we simply hate fighting anyone whom could put up a fight. Even in WW2 we didn't want to go to war until we were directly attacked. Also, note that we heavily employed natives in WW2, because their languages were ones that the Japanense and Germans didn't know. We even heavily employed them in the Civil War; both sides did.
Nope. Mostly because when we drove the Spanish from Cuba, tried to keep 'communism' out of Southeast Asia, etc, etc, it was simply because we wanted to set up factories with cheap labor AKA sweatshops. So really, those nations' people are far better off without America now. Or at least, Cuba is; America's corporations got Southeast Asia back. |
| Deep unspeakable suffering may well be called a baptism, a regeneration, the initiation into a new state. | |
![]() |
|
| Dr. Jim | Nov 27 2006, 02:32 PM Post #12 |
|
Nihil estis, Omnes sum
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
We make better use of the land than they did, and we had superior technology and ways of thought. You wouldn't share cake with someone who doesn't eat it, would you? |
|
...Matt was no exception to this. When he stood in the street and noticed his chest started to really hurt again, he made the decision to look down. He screamed like a grown man would scream when that grown man sees a laser burning his chest, and that is like a little girl... -From Super Naked Moose Man | |
![]() |
|
| Falcon | Nov 27 2006, 03:06 PM Post #13 |
|
Apocalyptic Usher
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Oh yes, the places where America was kept out are much better off than the places we defeated communism so we could set up sweatshops, like S. Korea. /sarcasm |
![]() |
|
| Altanese | Nov 27 2006, 09:19 PM Post #14 |
|
Apocalyptic Usher
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Those weren't really communist governments, nor socialist. A communist society is a classless society wherein the working class has the most strength and reap the most rewards from their work. Cuba is the closest that I can think of, other than Lenin's administration, and Cuba is better off than before Fidel Castro. It would even be one of the most prosperous nations in Latin America if it weren't for the American blockaide. And remember that democracy does not equal freedom, nor does it mean prosperity. North Vietnam winning the war was far better for the nation in the long term than what the weak and unstable South Vietnamese government could have EVER provided. As for Korea? Well America really couldn't set up the same conditions that it usually allows it's corporations because it was afraid that such horrible working conditions could spark a major movement in South Korea that would drive out the United States and allow North Korea to unite all of Korea. |
| Deep unspeakable suffering may well be called a baptism, a regeneration, the initiation into a new state. | |
![]() |
|
| Falcon | Nov 28 2006, 12:17 AM Post #15 |
|
Apocalyptic Usher
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I don't think it is possible for such a thing to exist in the world. The communism you see in places like Russia is how those ideals take shape in practice.
Cuba isn't better off than it was prior to Castro. "As described by Mark Falcoff in his book, Cuba, the Morning After, Cubans were well-off before Castro. In 1958, Cuba ranked near the top in Latin America in most indices of development; urbanization, services, health and literacy." http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army....iles/ksil14.pdf http://www.ncpa.org/pi/internat/pdinter/march98k.html "Even before the Soviet Union fell apart, however, Cuba's lengthy economic decline already was accelerating. In 1989, Cuba reported a trade deficit of $2.73 billion on exports of $5.39 billion and imports of $8.12 billion. By 1993, the trade deficit had dropped to an estimated $310 million, but exports had fallen by over 70 percent to $1.53 billion while imports had contracted nearly 80 percent to $1.84 billion. Moscow's refusal in 1990 to sign a new five-year trade agreement with Cuba marked the end of the special relationship between the two nations which had sustained Castro's tyranny for thirty years." http://www.heritage.org/Research/TradeandF...nAid/BG1010.cfm There is no American "blockaide" either; Cuba is free to trade, and does trade, with the rest of the world other than the U.S. (http://www.heritage.org/Research/TradeandForeignAid/BG1010.cfm) Are you suggesting that the rest of the world is meaningless in the face of an American refusal to trade, that we can impoverish any nation simply by closing our doors? Of course not, Cuba is poor because of Castro, it was poor even when the Soviet Union was pouring tons of aid into it, it will always be poor as long as the utter abomination which is Castro's regime keeps enslaving and abusing its people. "Before Castro took power in 1959, Cuba ranked third in per capita income in Latin America, behind only Argentina and Venezuela. Today, after 35 years of socialism and more than $75 billion in Soviet economic and military aid, Cuba's per capita income is one of the lowest in the Western Hemisphere, possibly even approaching the levels of such countries as Haiti.[It is difficult to measure GSP per capita with any accuracy for several reasons, including the broad differential between the official and black market exchange rates " http://www.heritage.org/Research/TradeandF...nAid/BG1010.cfm
Bold and baseless assertion. The S. Vietnamese government wasn't great, but then again neither was the S. Korean government of the early 1950's. In case you don't get the comparison, S. Korea is so much better off than N. Korea it defies the English language to describe the gap. Vietnam has been an economic backwater and only began to improve when it abandoned communist practices (or whatever you want to call them since you apparently are loath to associate communism with failure) and adopted western capitalist free trade practices. "For example, although Vietnam has a long way to go to achieve an open trade policy, "as the nation has opened up, it has experienced a large increase in per capita income and no significant change in inequality," note economists David Dollar and Aart Kraay. Thus, "the income of the poor has risen dramatically, and the number of Vietnamese living in absolute poverty dropped sharply from 75 percent of the population in 1988 to 37 percent in 1998." 32" http://www.heritage.org/Research/TradeandF...nAid/bg1602.cfm
Oh, here is where you generalize away all the successes, still without even attempting to back up your claims with any sort of evidence. Too bad for you that the so called sweatshops are how you build an emerging economy. Its how we built our own economy. "Economists across the political spectrum, from Paul Krugman on the left, to Walter Williams on the right, have defended sweatshops. … People choose what they perceive to be in their best interest. ... If workers voluntarily choose to work in sweatshops … it must be because sweatshops are their best option. Our recent research - the first economic study to compare systematically sweatshop wages with average local wages - demonstrated this to be true. We examined the apparel industry in 10 Asian and Latin American countries … Not only were sweatshops superior to the dire alternatives economists usually mentioned, but they often provided a better-than-average standard of living for their workers. … In 9 of the 11 countries we surveyed, the average reported sweatshop wages equaled or exceeded average incomes and in some cases by a large margin." http://economistsview.typepad.com/economis...for_the_sw.html |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Philosophy and Ethics · Next Topic » |





![]](http://z2.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)











8:14 AM Jul 11