quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
Its at this point he will label you a racist and bigot. because its easier to blame another person than realise the flaw is in ones own character.

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:
I think the silliest comment I read on this topic was a suggestion that the Colonists made a mistake in not collaborating with the indigenous locals.

The whole point of colonisation is to not collaborate! The colonists arrived intending to seize, conquer, take and dominate.

Empire building isn't collaborative. Empires and fortunes are built on the backs of others, the defeated, the colonized.

I can't imagine telling Joshua and the Israelites that instead of marching around Jericho and God knocking down the city's walls they should sit down for lunch and shake hands.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
Its a real victim mentality.

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
This is the most IGNORANT & bigoted post in the entire thread. Stinks of arrogance and myopic prejudice instead of some historic objectivity and honesty.

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
Its a real victim mentality.

He's hysterically shrieking.

Shanks, am I wrong? Wasn't the whole intent of colonization to conquer? The intent of European immigrants was to take the land, push off the indigenous and settle right?

The Alaska Native Land Claims Settlement Act as well as the US reservation system was intended to finalize indigenous land holdings separate the indigenous onto their own defined land and secure the land European settlers had taken.

"Collaborate"

Rhodesia lasted as long as it could. With the fall of the British Empire the end result was inevitable and predictable.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
Its a real victim mentality.

He's hysterically shrieking.

Shanks, am I wrong? Wasn't the whole intent of colonization to conquer? The intent of European immigrants was to take the land, push off the indigenous and settle right?

The Alaska Native Land Claims Settlement Act as well as the US reservation system was intended to finalize indigenous land holdings separate the indigenous onto their own defined land and secure the land European settlers had taken.

"Collaborate"

Rhodesia lasted as long as it could. With the fall of the British Empire the end result was inevitable and predictable.

Scott, you aren't entirely wrong, but aren't correct either.. in north America, Oz, and nz they pushed to replace. In the rest of the world, it was to rule the locals

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
Its a real victim mentality.

He's hysterically shrieking.

Shanks, am I wrong? Wasn't the whole intent of colonization to conquer? The intent of European immigrants was to take the land, push off the indigenous and settle right?

The Alaska Native Land Claims Settlement Act as well as the US reservation system was intended to finalize indigenous land holdings separate the indigenous onto their own defined land and secure the land European settlers had taken.

"Collaborate"

Rhodesia lasted as long as it could. With the fall of the British Empire the end result was inevitable and predictable.

Scott, you aren't entirely wrong, but aren't correct either.. in north America, Oz, and nz they pushed to replace. In the rest of the world, it was to rule the locals

Help me with the difference.

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
I'll help you.

1. READ the bloody post properly
2. Read it again a hundred times
3. Do some simple research - like find out the law and the declaration of the Crown
4. Understand the difference between the legal document and what the people actually did illegally - Hint - that is why reparation is being paid
5. Again do some research and find out about those who got prosecuted and convicted - like Robert Clive. I am sure there were others in Australia, NZ, US etc.
6. Admit it - the "conquer and dominate" mindset is YOURS and not a historical starting point - you are not interested in facts but just want to rewrite history
7. Read about Tulsa - VERY different to Colonialism
8. Read about my point on what is happening TODAY

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
Its a real victim mentality.

He's hysterically shrieking.

Shanks, am I wrong? Wasn't the whole intent of colonization to conquer? The intent of European immigrants was to take the land, push off the indigenous and settle right?

The Alaska Native Land Claims Settlement Act as well as the US reservation system was intended to finalize indigenous land holdings separate the indigenous onto their own defined land and secure the land European settlers had taken.

"Collaborate"

Rhodesia lasted as long as it could. With the fall of the British Empire the end result was inevitable and predictable.

Scott, you aren't entirely wrong, but aren't correct either.. in north America, Oz, and nz they pushed to replace. In the rest of the world, it was to rule the locals

Help me with the difference.

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
Its a real victim mentality.

He's hysterically shrieking.

Shanks, am I wrong? Wasn't the whole intent of colonization to conquer? The intent of European immigrants was to take the land, push off the indigenous and settle right?

The Alaska Native Land Claims Settlement Act as well as the US reservation system was intended to finalize indigenous land holdings separate the indigenous onto their own defined land and secure the land European settlers had taken.

"Collaborate"

Rhodesia lasted as long as it could. With the fall of the British Empire the end result was inevitable and predictable.

Scott, you aren't entirely wrong, but aren't correct either.. in north America, Oz, and nz they pushed to replace. In the rest of the world, it was to rule the locals

Help me with the difference.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
Its a real victim mentality.

He's hysterically shrieking.

Shanks, am I wrong? Wasn't the whole intent of colonization to conquer? The intent of European immigrants was to take the land, push off the indigenous and settle right?

The Alaska Native Land Claims Settlement Act as well as the US reservation system was intended to finalize indigenous land holdings separate the indigenous onto their own defined land and secure the land European settlers had taken.

"Collaborate"

Rhodesia lasted as long as it could. With the fall of the British Empire the end result was inevitable and predictable.

Scott, you aren't entirely wrong, but aren't correct either.. in north America, Oz, and nz they pushed to replace. In the rest of the world, it was to rule the locals

Help me with the difference.

Sure, historians split the difference, where there were colonies that the brits tried to replace/install brits (and scots, yes, i am still salty about how some of my ancestors were forced here) and other places, such as india, where they just tried to rule the locals with some "latifundia" in place

quote:

You are so dumb.

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
I had coffee with a reputable businessman years ago and he told a very convincing story about when he was a young man and a young recruit in the South African or Rhodesian forces -- I can't remember, but the story was how he came into possession of one Robert Mugabe as a captive.

As reported, he was ordered to kill him, but as a young man who had never killed anyone before, he was reticent to simply execute Mugabe. As the story goes, while he contemplated his faith and his duty, a period of some time, the order was rescinded and he was told to turn Mugabe loose, and he complied with that order.
According to his account, he had often wondered if he should have simply carried out the first order and what effect that would have had on not only the country, but the continent.

If the story is true, and it seemed very credible to me, considering its source, the world would have been a better place if he had followed his first order immediately.

The gentleman in question is no longer with us, so his rendition can no longer be verified.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
[QUOTE]You are so dumb.

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
I'll help you.

1. READ the bloody post properly
2. Read it again a hundred times
3. Do some simple research - like find out the law and the declaration of the Crown
4. Understand the difference between the legal document and what the people actually did illegally - Hint - that is why reparation is being paid
5. Again do some research and find out about those who got prosecuted and convicted - like Robert Clive. I am sure there were others in Australia, NZ, US etc.
6. Admit it - the "conquer and dominate" mindset is YOURS and not a historical starting point - you are not interested in facts but just want to rewrite history
7. Read about Tulsa - VERY different to Colonialism
8. Read about my point on what is happening TODAY

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
Its a real victim mentality.

He's hysterically shrieking.

Shanks, am I wrong? Wasn't the whole intent of colonization to conquer? The intent of European immigrants was to take the land, push off the indigenous and settle right?

The Alaska Native Land Claims Settlement Act as well as the US reservation system was intended to finalize indigenous land holdings separate the indigenous onto their own defined land and secure the land European settlers had taken.

"Collaborate"

Rhodesia lasted as long as it could. With the fall of the British Empire the end result was inevitable and predictable.

Scott, you aren't entirely wrong, but aren't correct either.. in north America, Oz, and nz they pushed to replace. In the rest of the world, it was to rule the locals

Help me with the difference.

More hysterical shrieking.

Shanks, does he finally faint after a while? Not enough oxygen to the old melon?

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
Roland, you are correct, I did. I have boycotted any threads dealing with US politics, but made an exception for foreign politics. Perhaps I shouldn't have.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

You are so dumb.

Nakihunter, Scott wasn't addressing you, yet you call him dumb. Why should anyone listen to your cries of racism, bullying, and the like, when you are the one who often initiates the personal attacks?

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

You are so dumb.

Nakihunter, Scott wasn't addressing you, yet you call him dumb. Why should anyone listen to your cries of racism, bullying, and the like, when you are the one who often initiates the personal attacks?

Is it odd that Naki mentioned The Empress, Direct Rule and swearing loyalty to the Crown but denies subjugation?

R, I think you can tell I'm not advocating or defending colonialism, empire building, conquest or any other authoritarian rule, I'm no more or less saying that's the way it was. There was no silver lining. Sure, "missionaries" frequently followed the armies in one way or another, but that was further subjugation.

Portugal and Spain sent their ships to the Americas for gain. The Empress of India wasn't on The Sub Continent to share wealth and benevolence, she was there to line her pockets. To the original topic, the white Rhodesians moved there to advance themselves and no one else. The black Rhodesians were in the way if they weren't good manual labor.

Among the colonies and empires of any century, the conquerors were and are there for their advancement and that on the backs of the indigenous. When it's over, it's over. Ride the wave til it peters out.

Look at our American Indigenous. Reservations, HUD, food stamps, federal grants, federal law enforcement, federal roads and highways.

"Collaborate".

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
Roland

If you care to read Scott's posts, you will see several that attack and abuse me rather than debate.

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
Doc

You need to be specific about the thread and the context.

Have I called you racist? Never. Have I challenged your moral compass about supporting political positions that have inherent racist values and agenda. Yes. Have I accused Republicans of supporting a racist party. Yes.
"Challenging your moral compass" by saying look at your moral compass because you are supporting this is a rather highbrow way of saying "you are amoral." Yes, it is a personal attack.

You fail to see the important difference. I have always enjoyed debating with you despite your diluting the moral problems of the Far right.
As I enjoy debating you when you stick to more factual levels of debate as well. Debating folks who agree with you is boring.

I doubt I called you a Colonist but I am sure I accused you of sympasthising with colonialism. You have blatantly claimed that Colonialism was good for the subjugated population.
Not quite. I said that the colonial system was better in many respects for the subject people than what they replaced it with. That is quite different.

Doc I am challenging your moral compass now. How many times in the last several years have you seen me abuse someone just for the sake of insulting that person and not as a reply, or without any fact based argument? How many times have people like Jtex, Jeffesco and other haters keep bullying and posting insuts with no debate or argument? I challenge your moral fibre.
I have seen you resort to impuning people with some regularity, but not usually using epithets until you have been insulted in that manner first. But you have been getting a lot of coarse response due to your tone and intellectual put downs on other people. Sure, you are being attacked on a racial basis... by folks who feel you did that to them numerous times before.

BTW I have a very tick skin. I have been alone in standing up to Republican bullying and hate for 12 years on ARPF. The calls I make on bullying are vindicated. Those cowards ultimately run for cover. They try to gang up just like some on this thread.
Your definition and mine of a thick skin are pretty different then.

The fact remains that the US is a chaotically broken society with 30% MAGA lunatics. I have repeatedly pointed out that the Democratic party is way to the right of center in Global context. It is laughable when Americans accused Kamala Harris and Biden of being leftist, let alone radicals. Even Bernie Sanders would be a moderate Liberal Democrat in Europe.
The US is not a chaotically broken society. 30% are not MAGA lunatics. 30% support enough of what Trump says to call themselves that, but I have yet to meet a Trump supporter who actually supports everything Trump does/says.

The US politically is very different than most other countries... while we are not limited to two parties, we are essentially a two party system. The Democrat party is not way to the right of center in a global context, it is an amalgamation of views that is to the more progressive side of US politics, but some of the members of that party are to the political right of center globally, and some are pretty extreme left. If you were a bit more involved in US politics, you would know that.

It is hardly laughable that in US politics, Harris and Biden are considered leftist. You compare to the US population, not globally.

Is Putin a moderate or extremist? In Russia, I doubt he is viewed as extremist. Is he right or left wing? I posit he is left wing as he is/was a communist. He is totalitarian, imperialistic, and a rogue agent. You need to define things appropriately.


I suggest you read the full posts that you took offense from and reflect on the principles involved. Do you really understand the issues I am debating?
I didn't particularly take offense, I just feel you are resorting to emotional attacks rather than debating the issues at times.

Do I understand the issues you are debating? I think so, its just that I do not agree with you as to how you are putting them forth.

You seem to miss the historical facts I point out and switch to deflections and justifications. To the contrary, generally I feel that you are misinterpreting the historical facts and their relevance at times.

Look, I get you are personally attacked with some regularity here. I deplore that... but I also see the comments from some others (and they are not all US folks) as not being random attacks made out of racism or hatred, but rather as a excessive response to your own behavior here.

I don't consider Scott a particularly right wing or reactionary person. He and I have had our differences here... but we don't go out of our way to be insulting.

Look at my interactions with Mike Mitchell on this board. I disagree with him a lot. He often does say things that I consider personal attacks, and he even recognizes it at will at times admit that he needs to do better. I would have no problems sitting down and talking with him. I may consider his politics wrongheaded to a fault, but that does not make him less of a person that I am willing to chat with.

Same about you. I think your politics are absolutely bizarre, but you do hunt and shoot and I am sure we could find lots of things that we could chat and enjoy time over.

That you moved to a nation that wholeheartedly is western (and foreign to yours) in its cultural belief system (New Zealand) for personal advancement reasons shows that there must be something superior about that system to where you came from.

New Zealand is a colonial state.

It may well be trying to change some of its practices, but its fundamental legal, moral, and philosophical framework is that of the western (English) colonists that is slowly changing to include more participation by outside influences (which by the way is a western value- do you see Iran, Congo, or Russia allowing outside influences to change their national fabric?

India itself is using a Western value system to slowly change- they have a parliment and elections, and utilize a border system that was from the old colonial masters... I don't see India fracturing into its old conglomeration of independent principalities anytime soon, which is the historic Indian cultural system... So is everything the colonial powers done bad in India?

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
Doc

You need to be specific about the thread and the context.

Have I called you racist? Never. Have I challenged your moral compass about supporting political positions that have inherent racist values and agenda. Yes. Have I accused Republicans of supporting a racist party. Yes.
"Challenging your moral compass" by saying look at your moral compass because you are supporting this is a rather highbrow way of saying "you are amoral." Yes, it is a personal attack.

You fail to see the important difference. I have always enjoyed debating with you despite your diluting the moral problems of the Far right.
As I enjoy debating you when you stick to more factual levels of debate as well. Debating folks who agree with you is boring.

I doubt I called you a Colonist but I am sure I accused you of sympasthising with colonialism. You have blatantly claimed that Colonialism was good for the subjugated population.
Not quite. I said that the colonial system was better in many respects for the subject people than what they replaced it with. That is quite different.

Doc I am challenging your moral compass now. How many times in the last several years have you seen me abuse someone just for the sake of insulting that person and not as a reply, or without any fact based argument? How many times have people like Jtex, Jeffesco and other haters keep bullying and posting insuts with no debate or argument? I challenge your moral fibre.
I have seen you resort to impuning people with some regularity, but not usually using epithets until you have been insulted in that manner first. But you have been getting a lot of coarse response due to your tone and intellectual put downs on other people. Sure, you are being attacked on a racial basis... by folks who feel you did that to them numerous times before.

BTW I have a very tick skin. I have been alone in standing up to Republican bullying and hate for 12 years on ARPF. The calls I make on bullying are vindicated. Those cowards ultimately run for cover. They try to gang up just like some on this thread.
Your definition and mine of a thick skin are pretty different then.

The fact remains that the US is a chaotically broken society with 30% MAGA lunatics. I have repeatedly pointed out that the Democratic party is way to the right of center in Global context. It is laughable when Americans accused Kamala Harris and Biden of being leftist, let alone radicals. Even Bernie Sanders would be a moderate Liberal Democrat in Europe.
The US is not a chaotically broken society. 30% are not MAGA lunatics. 30% support enough of what Trump says to call themselves that, but I have yet to meet a Trump supporter who actually supports everything Trump does/says.

The US politically is very different than most other countries... while we are not limited to two parties, we are essentially a two party system. The Democrat party is not way to the right of center in a global context, it is an amalgamation of views that is to the more progressive side of US politics, but some of the members of that party are to the political right of center globally, and some are pretty extreme left. If you were a bit more involved in US politics, you would know that.

It is hardly laughable that in US politics, Harris and Biden are considered leftist. You compare to the US population, not globally.

Is Putin a moderate or extremist? In Russia, I doubt he is viewed as extremist. Is he right or left wing? I posit he is left wing as he is/was a communist. He is totalitarian, imperialistic, and a rogue agent. You need to define things appropriately.


I suggest you read the full posts that you took offense from and reflect on the principles involved. Do you really understand the issues I am debating?
I didn't particularly take offense, I just feel you are resorting to emotional attacks rather than debating the issues at times.

Do I understand the issues you are debating? I think so, its just that I do not agree with you as to how you are putting them forth.

You seem to miss the historical facts I point out and switch to deflections and justifications. To the contrary, generally I feel that you are misinterpreting the historical facts and their relevance at times.

Look, I get you are personally attacked with some regularity here. I deplore that... but I also see the comments from some others (and they are not all US folks) as not being random attacks made out of racism or hatred, but rather as a excessive response to your own behavior here.

I don't consider Scott a particularly right wing or reactionary person. He and I have had our differences here... but we don't go out of our way to be insulting.

Look at my interactions with Mike Mitchell on this board. I disagree with him a lot. He often does say things that I consider personal attacks, and he even recognizes it at will at times admit that he needs to do better. I would have no problems sitting down and talking with him. I may consider his politics wrongheaded to a fault, but that does not make him less of a person that I am willing to chat with.

Same about you. I think your politics are absolutely bizarre, but you do hunt and shoot and I am sure we could find lots of things that we could chat and enjoy time over.

That you moved to a nation that wholeheartedly is western (and foreign to yours) in its cultural belief system (New Zealand) for personal advancement reasons shows that there must be something superior about that system to where you came from.

New Zealand is a colonial state.

It may well be trying to change some of its practices, but its fundamental legal, moral, and philosophical framework is that of the western (English) colonists that is slowly changing to include more participation by outside influences (which by the way is a western value- do you see Iran, Congo, or Russia allowing outside influences to change their national fabric?

India itself is using a Western value system to slowly change- they have a parliment and elections, and utilize a border system that was from the old colonial masters... I don't see India fracturing into its old conglomeration of independent principalities anytime soon, which is the historic Indian cultural system... So is everything the colonial powers done bad in India?

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:
Collaborate Naki says.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...an_Rebellion_of_1857

Naki, what you're still not getting is that nobody cares what you think. It's the Internet,you are as faceless, nameless and unverifiable as they get. Nobody reads your posted links, mostly your rants are glossed over.

Sure it's an international forum, I'd of thought that to obvious to mention, but when it comes to American politics and current events, the opinion and hysterical shrieking from New Zealand via India isn't worth bothering.

Case in point, our friend Shanks. Recently Shanks has advocated or at least discussed encouragingly Western support of Foreign Entanglements like the war in Ukraine. Now, the three of us know, Shanks isn't going to actually contribute personally or nationally to anything going on there, but I as well as the rest of America bear that burden so I say no! I said to Shanks, "you go do it, leave me out!"

I'm guessing you won't get it.

It's the Internet Naki. You are just not going to be taken seriously or even considered anymore than I or anyone else here is.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
Wel you'd be slightly wrong there Scott. I have contributed personally. And My country is starting to pick up its donations of military and non military support to Ukraine.
(new govt etc}

And the US is far from bearing that burden.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...nd%20other%20parties.

Your view is understandable. Short sighted and naive, as well as forgetful. But I can see where it comes from. And Id support it if it weren't for Amrica taking massive benefit from the rest of the world.
https://www.usip.org/publicati.../americas-role-world
https://carnegieendowment.org/...in-the-world?lang=en

The difference is you and I can majorly disagree without resentment.

quote:

By far the most