Wouldn't say genocidal, considering they worked with, or traded with, a lot of the natives as much as warred with them during the times of the colonies, and most of the large scale violence occurred after the nation was established and started pushing westward to expand.
Oh, that's okay then: they merely slaughtered most of the Native Americans west of the Eastern seaboard. Only 95% or so of them eliminated, and the remainder ethnically cleansed into worthless patches of desert - hardly worth even calling a genocide.
Agema, I know you like to be an intentionally dishonest, hyperbolic antagonizer, but could you for once try to not maliciously mischaracterize what my opinions are solely to try to punish me for not sharing your ideological obsession?
Seriously, I never said the actions were ok, I was clarifying why calling it genocidal wasn't quite right in that situation and would be better suited to describe actions later on in America's history. I know you have an involuntary reaction that forces you to resort to fallacy and disruptive sniping whenever you see a post from a person that doesn't agree with you wholesale, but could you do the entire site a favor and keep it in your pants this time and stop trying to willful derail things by attacking me via manufactured accusations about my opinions on it being "ok"?
Does this mention have a purpose related to my point? I am genuinely curious if the lack of mention of the fact Spain had colonies as well (or other european nations I didn't mention either such as netherlands) has any baring at all to the point being made that colonialists, unlike immigrants, aren't planning on leaving their nationality behind them.
Because I can't for the life of me see how it matters to that point at all. Seems like pedantic nit-picking for the sake of trying to antagonize.
Its just an apt demonstration of how you view Spanish/Portugeuse colonists as somehow different to French and English speaking ones. There were/are far, far, far fewer descendents of French speaking colonists in the Americas and in the U.S. than Spanish. But Spanish as opposed to French speaking has become associated with non-European-ness (weirdly, as a european) so your go to was French. Its paper thin.
Also lol, I'm trying to antagonize? You are doing the exact thing you complain about me doing in the post that I was replying to. Lets all enjoy this wonderful antagonism-free discussion, shall we?:
You are again making assumptions driven by your uncharitable miscaracterization of me, then sticking to them when corrected about why they are wrong, nothing more. That is pretty antagonistic and done so when you should be addressing actual points and arguments instead. In this instance, you assume I view Spanish colonization differently in any relevant way, yet refuse to accept when this assumption is addressed and corrected. That is not engaging in good faith, and instead is actively seeking conflict. That would be needlessly antagonistic to the detriment of the discussion since you avoid addressing arguments to instead do that. I suppose I should be glad you confirmed my suspicions there that your nitpicking was indeed just an effort to be needlessly antagonistic though.
Oh for the love of...
You just parrot this stuff you hear others saying that you think support your political opinions without even thinking about it, don't you? I have seen this same opinion spammed across twitter, facebook and other sites all week, complete with the same flaws and irrationality behind it. Well, lets tackle it again.
Smug beyond belief. Truly, there's no bar so low that you couldn't condescendingly inform it that you could make a lower one.
You mean I am less than polite when addressing a poster who I routinely argue with, who regularly relies on fallacy, and who is so driven by their political ideology that they have blindly regurgitated previously debunked nonsense time and again, and are doing so now?
Yeah, I am a lot less patient with those who knowing spread garbage around and who have been called out for it countless times before. But you know what you forgot to show there in your rush? How I make sure that my criticisms still have a damn point behind them. You know what ELSE you forgot in your reply here? Answering my question as to what you point was in relation to my argument. Not how it was being used to justify your own character attack on me, but how it actually related to the point.
So I will tag that onto the end here and ask again:
What does my lack of mentioning all countries with colonies matter at all to my claim that immigrants and colonists are different? Does mentioning the other colonies change that immigrants and colonists are different?
Other examples of anti-antagonism?:
But I might as well address it's flaws anyways. I don't want to get into a big side-discussion on your attempts to validate the OP's equating, but might as well hit the basic points.
Oh? You might as well hit the "basic" points? That's so kind of you.
Also, do you really think that what you typed to me constitutes avoiding a big side discussion? Its absolutely astonishing either A) how much you enjoy posting so many superfluous words or B) how much you do something you don't enjoy that much for absolutely no reason. All the while patting yourself on the back like you are doing this great favour to humankind by bestowing your wisdom through impenetrably long diatribes full to the brim with condescending, self-congratulatory waffling.
To top it off, at the end of all that passive-aggressive belittling you seem genuinely confused that people don't agree with you. Its mesmerizing.
"I posted garbage you had to address and you replied to it! Gosh, why are you wasting time addressing it when you said you didn't want to?"
My wishes to stay away from pointless side discussions doesn't make the trash you willfully heap up stink any less. Nor does my wish that you would engage in good faith mean I wont call it out when you intentionally fail to.
I can want a civil, reasonable discussion and still be forced to put up with your replies instead. Same as I can want a healthy meal and still be forced to eat fast food when the option isn't there.
And yes, I DID avoid going deeper into it. There is a lot there I could, and I will a little more following this, since it is probably the only part of the first half of your reply that you concentrate on the topic long enough that the conversation feels like a discussion and not like I am grading a child's attempt bullshit their way out of trouble with ever generic and common tactic they can.
Yeah, I can tell I should probably view you as exactly the same sort of person as saelune and agema. Ok then.
You can, but I don't have any incentive to address it because it is an irrelevant non-sequitur that avoids my points and instead wastes time complaining about "the right" as if that matters in the least to a single point I made or somehow undoes a single problem I called out.
But I might as well address it's flaws anyways. I don't want to get into a big side-discussion on your attempts to validate the OP's equating, but might as well hit the basic points.
Oh runic. I'm so glad you complained about antagonism. You really are a dream. Honestly though, there's no need to be coy. Don't feel the need to bat down my opinion as being not worth your time only to a paragraph later say that you suppose you could get into some of the simpler points with me. Those simple points apparently making up several very long paragraphs. I dread to think what the complicated version was going to be.
It is a waste of time and irrelevant to what I was saying. That needed to be pointed out in the event you did not realize that (I had to try to give you the benefit of the doubt there, after all). But if you are going to try to shit all over and strut around like you accomplished something after after I called your antics out for what they were, I am just going to laugh instead.
As I said before, wishing I had something worthwhile to respond to and only getting your replies are different things. I could, of course, do a shorter reply calling out your willful maliciously, your open attempts to derail, and your intentional antagonism and not bother addressing any of the distracting nonsense within, but I do like to clean up garbage when I see it, and I am aware that other read along and like to see it address. Though with the decline of the site, the audience is leaving too. Quickly losing even that smidgeon of value in informing others. Ah well, now that posturing is addressed, lets see if we get to anything related to the argument itself.
See point 3.
"3rd. Justifying illegal immigration by saying that refugees have as much a right to enter the nation as a citizen equates the two. They are different yet you use them interchangeably."
Since you snipped it and didn't address anything at all, so I have no clue what your point is about, so I just repeated my early address of point 3.
I could guess what you point is, but you are just being petulantly lazy here, so I wont do your work for you.
2nd. Pointing out hypocrisy usual requires you not commit it. In this case, in saying europeans were unjust in their claiming of native american lands (a complicated claim itself as some was stolen outright, some was bought and paid for, some was given, and some was claimed with war), you invalidate every nation on the planet (name one that hasn't used any of the previously mentioned methods to obtain, claim, or defend the claim of land), and by extension invalidate any claim that there is a "rightful" owner of said land in the first place.
Or to sum it up more directly, why is it unjust when colonialists took land and resources from the native tribes, but not when the native tribes took the land and resources from other native tribes? Or when tribes took it from smaller gatherings of humans and proto humans as the evolved. Hence the hypocrisy while trying to call it out for such.
The difference is that when native people took land from other native people, they very rarely exterminated the culture that remained. For all your talk of equation, this has to be the most absurd equation of them all. Native tribes lived under not the same, but similar government and social systems. The difference to a native person between living under a different tribe in a colonist-free North America and living on a colonist designated renovation is massive.
Your romanticized view of native american culture is noted, but your point attempted is arbitrary. "They didn't kill other tribes for land and resources as thoroughly as some european descendants" is moving the goalpost some, as the original protest of "annexing land through warfare was unjust". Still warfare, still killing people and taking their land, still a shared commonality at the root of every human civilization.
So, again, either it is "just" to take land from those you kill or it is not. The extent you go to in killing them is a different element to argue morality on, as the point you wrapped your complaints about if american's even had right to the lands they hold was based on them killing and taking it from others. You are intermixing the two elements to justify your outrage, but your argument suffers for the attempt.
3rd. Justifying illegal immigration by saying that refugees have as much a right to enter the nation as a citizen equates the two. They are different yet you use them interchangeably.
No it doesn't. I don't understand how you arrived at that conclusion, frankly. Here is the argument:
1) Native Americans originally occupy and "own" the land.
2) Colonists come to North America and take land unjustly (Through conquest, etc)
3) Colonists form U.S. from stolen land
4) U.S. claims that illegal immigration to the U.S. is unjust
Conclusion: The U.S. is hypocritical.
Citizens do not have to equal illegal immigrants for them to also have as much justifiable claim to ownership as each other. They do not have to share the exact same charateristics, but to reject immigrants (illegal or otherwise) as having no claim while your claim is knowingly manufactored is hypocritical.
Now, you can also add to that conclusion that every country that restricts immigration is also hypocritical and to a degree you would be right; but not in any similar degree as the U.S. The U.S. needed vast numbers of people to fill all that land it stole. It is a country built and arguably founded on immigration with the parodoxical desire to despise any immigrant group at the behest of a conservative narrative.
There is a statue in one of the most famous immigrant ports in the country dedicated to immigration and liberty, a focul point of U.S. culture. Immigration from Europe has changed demograpics across the country. This sudden rejection of immigration is mindblowingly short-sighted.
1) The natives fought and claimed it from amongst themselves. That means until the europeans arrived, land owned by conquest was seen as acceptable means of obtaining it.
2) You argue conquest is unjust because it is from europeans, your position requires that special pleading.
3) Colonists form U. S. from a combination of stolen, conquered, granted, traded-for, and paid-for lands.
4) Us, after establishing a national government and defined boarders, then decides the entry requirements according to its laws, including that immigration not done through proper channels means they are not legal citizen of the nation itself.
Conclusion: Null. The premises don't build toward a conclusion, they are just statements of simple fact. The natives fought and killed for land, but you claim it was unjust when the Europeans joined in. Special pleading there, especially because, as mentioned before, you are trying to combine thoroughness of warfare with the act of using it to take land at all. From there, the US is formed out of a combination of means to obtain territory, and it makes it own laws shared across the nation itself, including what defines a citizen. Attempted immigrants (again, note immigrants and not colonists) that do not fulfill this requirement are thus illegal immigrants.
There is just no conclusion to draw from those 4 premises, let alone that america is hypocritical. Hell, the flaw in trying to equate colonists with immigrants is the major point I made from the start. Immigrants are seeking to join the nation they move to, not just take land and resources.
A true equivalent would be a european moving into native lands and then claiming they are part of the tribe itself and demanding treatment as such with no respect for the tribe's laws.
Mexico is building a wall to stop south americans from entering it. Your claims about other nations being different are null for that even if it wasn't yet more special pleading to begin with.
Also, you interchange immigration with illegal immigration, and try to raise a stink about america being the nation of immigrants while ignoring that the famous statue is a symbol seen by those before they were processed legally. You equate illegal immigration with all immigration, a equivocation fallacy.
You also rely on a flawed opinion that a nation is not able to change it's opinions on immigration rules, stemming from a source I simply can not discern. A nation can close its borders entirely if it wishes, then open them up the year after. It is up to the nation to decide that, and in a democracy, up to the voters to vote on it or vote on representatives who vote on it. When the decision is reflective of what the citizens think is best for the nation at the time, the decision to do it once and not do it a second time is not hypocritical so much as reactionary. It would be as hypocritical as a store offering a sale one day but not the next. I can see the attempt to argue it, but that is pretty worthless in convincing anymore that the good they chose to provide before should be all the time just because it suits your desires.
4th. Justifying illegal immigration by saying that refugees have as much a right to enter the nation as a citizen also commits the exact problem I called out before, that of equating immigration with colonization since you use it in relation to discussing that topic. That you laughed off my calling that problem out only to repeat that equating does have me scratching my head, but it doesn't stop it from still being as flawed as it was from the start. Immigrants are moving into a new nation with hopes of joining it and benefiting from it as a nation. Colonist are moving to new lands with hope of claiming them for their parent nation. Saying they equate is saying that immigrants want to claim american lands for their own nations, a claim that, again, I would hope people supporting immigration would know better than to try to make.
You are describing the actions of individuals by the motivation of the group. What makes you think that individual colonists moving to North America gave a damn about "claiming land for their parent nation"? They wanted to live somewhere else, often to be free of religious or other persecution, sometimes fleeing famine or war. In that sense, there is so much more similarity between these colonists and illegal immigrants. They were people looking for a different, better life. Is there really no comparison to be made?
Well, the assumption generally comes from their continued staying with the local nationally-lead governments, their attempts to remain part of the home nation when they formed their own, their ties to the mainland for supplies, culture, and trade, and the fact most records show that colonists viewed them selves proudly of their home nation. Hell, Canada still does view itself as a British subject to a degree. I'll concede that some may have gone there to full leave their nation, though nothing I have yet seen suggests their numbers were noteworthy. But that does tie back to my previous analogy about those who went to the colonies and instead became part of the local tribes without respect to culture or laws of those tribes. Pretty sure that ended poorly for most of them, especially because as the nation pushed west, armed and violent conflict happened between the invading americans and the tribes out there. I guess the natives out that ways were a lot more violent towards those few true "immigrants" coming to take land and resources out of fear they were really just the usual colonists coming to take land and resources. Or they just saw white people taking land and resources and violently opposed their efforts where they could.
This is just a bunch of nonsense. I'm fully aware that nations can go to war, but thanks for checking up on me. Who knows, I could have had a stroke reading this thesis of a reply.
As for the rest, I'm not asking if nations "can" restrict immigration and cage children. Evidently they can. I'm asking if its justifiable.
Considering the first half of this reply, I wouldn't be surprised if you had. Fortunately it did improve after 2nd point.
As for it being justified, the ruling on that would need to be consistent. In this case, either every nation is justified in enforcing their borders as a general concept, or they are not. The argument that all nations war and claim new lands for it shows that no nation is without "sin" in the regard of taking the land of others, and therefore any argument against the US about how immigrants have a right to the land anyways would apply to all of them too.
Considering the point of a nation is to protect its people, its culture, and its systems of government, I would say all nations are justified in at least determining who can be a citizen, what requirements for that entail, and yes, who can come into their nation to be a member of it. I suspect, that for all the fun of posturing, and all the run about with arguments, this debate on if it is justified will probably be the core difference of opinion.
The difference is legality.
Right. Its not a convenient difference to distance yourself from an acknowldged mistake, its a solidly upheld moral principle. Gotcha.
Considering I have no problem with someone owning a car, but I do with someone taking MY car, I would think the distinction between legal and illegal acts and why one might disagree with the latter but not the former would be easy to get.
As it is, you don't bother addressing my point and instead make an uncharitable assumption about my motivation as if insinuation me pointing out that illegal immigration is not the same as legal migration is motivated by distancing myself from some nebulous "mistake" is a worthwhile replacement.
It is not, it is just trying to attack my character instead of addressing my point. A shame, you had to go ruin that good bit of a streak where I could concentrate on the actual argument there.
The ones you mentioned first, the Irish, the italian, the german, the spanish, they were never celebrated in their own time to begin with (remember, they were outright denied employment when they first came over and forced to live in ghettos), but they were allowed because they were legally processed.
"allowed"? Denied employment, harrased and killed, but "allowed"? That's your standard?
If legal immigration isn't a problem, why is Trump eliminating the family lottery, one of the few legal ways to immigrate to the U.S.? The intention of the current administration is obvious from its actions and supporters and enablers of that administration are responsible as well.
Allowed to enter legally and become citizens under the law and were still treated like crap, sometimes for generations. Yes. What is incorrect in that statement? Or are you again assuming my "standard" as if it is my personal moral ruling in that regard that the horrible actions of the past were perfectly acceptable? More uncharitable miscaracterization for the sole purpose to attacking the character of the person disagreeing with you, not the arguments or points made.
Legal immigration is not opposed by people the same as illegal immigration. Sure, you have some who oppose all immigration, but most people are fine with it so long as it is done legally. Hell, brietbart dropped an article recently claiming that the majority of conservatives oppose all immigration, only to be chewed out and railed against by their fans on twitter and the comments (the poll itself being shittily done probably explaining why it got the outcome they wanted to hear).
As for Trump, probably out of a misguided idea that doing so will prevent random immigrants and instead allow greater control over who comes in so they have skills of value to the nation. Limited amount of resources, the nation can only take in so many after all. I think it is tackling the problem from the wrong angle, but there it is.
Tell me, given your criticism of what was very obviously simple breakdown of things to demonstrate the problem with the claim about the rebels being terrorist, was the over-simplification of events in any way undermining my actual point that the rebels were not terrorists?
Your interpretation is so simplistic that it is missing nuance. What of U.S. revolutionary captains who pirated British ships? What of the other less savoury elements of the war of independence that you are not mentioning? Are those not more similar to terrorism? Are you really arguing that the rebels weren't willing to commit atrocities considering the revenge attacks that happened to the natives that sided with the British?
Its an insincere comparison. You are arguing in bad faith.
I am not at all denying that they did. I am saying, simply, that they were not terrorists because they did not use fear and terror to push their ideology, and instead just waged a war to gain their political freedom.
You again make assumptions of me, were corrected, then doubled down on them. THAT is arguing in bad faith, not that you misrepresented the purpose of the comparison and refused to listen when it was explained to you.
Did I say there was no similarity?
Did I say there was no problems with voting districts?
Did I say those complaining about voting issues were "cry-baby liberals?
Yes, Yes and no, I added that one; but on further analysis you'd probably call them the "radical left". Anyway, I'll bold it for you:
That is very different than today where many people are encouraging violence as a response to not getting their way in a democratic republic where they DO have right to voice their concerns and vote on representatives. That is also very different on the basis of a lot of the people demanding being treated like citizens are not actual citizens of the nation they want to direct how to run what way.
"people not being able to vote on representatives" is Porto Rico still having no right to vote and in many U.S. states. gerrymandering.
No, no, and no.
Show me where I claimed there was NO similarities U.S.' treatment of Porto Rico and the British Empire's treatment of the 13 colonies.
Show me where I claimed there was NO problems with voting districts.
If you are going to outright lie about my own words and position, spare me your attempt at moral superiority.
Pointing out differences is not the same as saying there are no similarities, merely that the avenue used of attempted comparison was flawed. And it was. You are again being dishonest in portraying my positions and arguments, and are arguing in bad faith.
You are inverting my point of "these similarities don't work in your argument" to try to claim I am saying there is no similarities at all. That is an unapologetic lie on your part.
My point was simple: Those similarities drawn upon are not enough to justify the comparison used in the argument as it was made.
You decided to lie about what I said to argue against it. That is on you, but it makes your position look bad when you must resort to such blatant dishonesty.
Video is unavailable.
Furthermore, if you can't translate the video into your own words, you shouldn't bother arguing the point in the first place. I can get calling in a source, but don't expect me to watch a video in place of your actual argument. Doing so makes me think you don't actually have one and I wont waste my time watching what you link me to when you can't even give it context.
Oh ho ho, spicy words. What, am I wasting your valuable time, dear denzien of the internet willing to type 100s of lines when 10 would do?
Yes. You are wasting my time when you post dead links and assume it is a substitute for an actual argument.
So as not to waste your time, I will describe exactly what happens in the video: A black man is being arrested by police, he is sitting on the curb recieving contradictory instructions from two officers. The man attempts to cross his legs (as ordered by one officer) and is tased by the other officer. the man remained seated and calm until the taser hits him.
It was in reference to this point:
On the revolutionary side, you have people with no peaceful recourse, who were denied actual rights, had no means to vote for them, and were taxed and punished unfairly despite being legal citizens themselves, and who when even declaring freedom, were attacked and pressed into a war to justify their very human rights to speak freely, to arm themselves, and to be able to vote.
The more things change the more they stay the same, hm?
And the man has no right to vote? No representative to go to? No public to air his grievances to because of laws against speaking freely (this one disproven by the video itself)?
No, it was a horrible incident that shows a problem in this society, but it is still different from the thing you compare it to on many basises, including those that were the ultimate justification for violence that led to the nation forming itself.
To offer a counter-point, your argument would justify the violence of any extremist right-wing nutjob out there who is treated like shit by the police as well. Statistics show that police killings occurs more often on white people (totals, not adjusted to population percentages), but hey, if you want to cherry pick an example, they can too for the same reason of justification.
Do you see the problem this caused when you do that?
Wouldn't even call it much of an insult itself so much as an observation about those who promote violence in the modern left.
This is just ridiculous. "Observing" that you think someone is overweight is insulting. "Observing" that you think someone needs the basic facts fed to them is insulting. I'm mystified that you don't understand.
No, it is not insulting just because someone was offended by it. The intention to insult and the fact someone got insulted are separate things, and you would apply them in reverse to make a claim about me.
But for clarity sake, lets reword that. My observations there were not meant to insult, but rather as matter of fact statements of what was seen. That they, or you on their behalf, got offended is noted, but since you are so willing to disregard my intent and meaning throughout the post anyways, I see no reason to accept your being insulted as worthwhile reason to accept an accusation about myself or my intentions.
Lets do a quick example. If I call you a liar because you were caught openly lying about something, I am sure it would make you feel bad. It doesn't make it not true though, nor does it make the observation automatically come with the intent to insult instead of simple describe what was seen.
I would hope though, if you find it so insulting, you would change your behavior rather than assume being offended means I should shut up about it but you get to keep committing the action without critique.
Thie observation is just an additional that my position neither relies itself on nor uses alone as an argument.
An addition that you use to feel superior about yourself. Its purely for your own benefit and very obviously so. Its the fuel for your dismisal of others.
Not of others, just of specific behavior committed. Those actions that were observed and pointed out for the failures they were, specifically. Bad tactics, bad arguments, logical fallacies, or just terrible behavior, they are pointed out because of the problems with them. If someone committing those behaviors, or who identifies with the group of those who are known to do so, takes offense, it still doesn't make my intention to insult them personally.
But that is why it was merely observation and my position and argument didn't rely on it, because it was, of all intent and description, just additional fluff.