Discussion in 'Free Thoughts' started by Ganymede, Apr 26, 2007.
Exactly. Both were blatant acts of terrorism. Planned assaults on civilians.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Was the Chinese guy part of the 33?
Or did 34 die, and 33 were killed by the Chinese guy. Because he is dead too.
He was Korean.
Yeah, that's what I was originally going to point out (where ~3000 people died), but one raven corrected me towards the thread's valid context.
well since the numbers seem to be 32 or 33 depending on which story you read, id say he was the 33rd.
MOD HAT - if you wish to discuss the evolution of different races, please do so in the appropriate(human sciences) forum, instead of derailing this thread. also, any further racist remarks will be deleted and infractions given.
Lol, this thread turned racist very quickly. Either way, we are all from Africa....
and for the record, the threadstarter is right, the Native Americans suffered much more shootings and massacres than the 32 poor souls who were shot to death. It seems, sadly, that Americans still look at Native Americans as irrelevant. It is almost as if the mainstream media pretends they do not exist. How many Native Americans do we see on T.V. nowadays? And please do not mention Lou Diamond Phillips, he's mixed as hell. I'm willing to bet most of us here have never heard of him either.
Sorry , Ill stay on topic.
You know I never saw a Native American in my life.
anyway, even tho the Native American is rights to land and can take land form anybody because of some law, its still not enough to repay for what happend.
Hello Arkman. Are you enjoying your new sockpuppet?
darksidZz's comments were disturbing, but the difference is he was joking. You, apparently, are serious :bugeye:
then what, in your opinion, causes white skin? and please no talk about albinos.
Roman don't stoop to his level. It's ok to ridicule him but by spitting out racist epithets only reduces you to his level. Ghost, what you're doing and saying is no different then Eugenics practioners. Using Science and arbritray differences to prove the other side is inferior. There's no future in this type of thinking.
Settle down Beavis. Learn to read internet slang. The "LMAO" at the end of his post means "lauging my arse off." Chill dude.
They are now called "Native Americans" in all official speech and documents, so yes, taxonomically they are and were Americans. Don't forget that the entire Western Hemisphere is "the Americas" and outside of the USA "American" tends to mean a person from this hemisphere, not a citizen of the United States. In that context the aboriginal people (the proper technical term but oh so politically incorrect) are unquestionably Americans.
Change in melanin level is indeed an adapatation that occurs naturally in populations of various genetic stock all over the world. As populations move north (in the Northern Hemisphere) their skin lightens to increase vitamin D production and as they move south their skin darkens to prevent sunburn. The process takes something like 2,000 years to complete, if I remember correctly. Compare the Gypsies to the other Indic people they left behind when they migrated north. The seeming anomaly of the Eskimo-Aleut people was explained in another post.
This assertion is clearly incorrect as you will hopefully learn as you complete your university education or perhaps high school.
The definition of "terrorism" has been beaten to death in numerous threads. Please review. The attribute that is missing here is the political motive for an act of extortion:
An attempt to force a civilian population to support a cause so unpopular that support cannot be gained by any other means and to petition their government to submit to the demands of the terrorist.
Calling the Oklahoma City bomber a terrorist isn't too much of a stretch. His complaint was purely political: The government is too big and too intrusive. He attacked a government installation (which may actually classify him as an "insurgent" rather than a "terrorist" but that's for another argument), making the political motivation clear. The extortion angle is a little weak but surely he hoped that Americans would be moved by the loss of life to give more respect to the Lunatic Fringe of the Libertarian Movement. (He didn't do his homework and discover there were children there, which destroyed any hope of respect.)
Anyway, analysis of Cho's activities does not turn up this key aspect, which prevents us from calling him a terrorist. Every mass murderer is not a terrorist and it's important to make that distinction. One must not tackle the threat of mass murder the same way one tackles the threat of terrorism.
Just as one must not tackle the threat of terrorism the same way one tackles the threat of war, which is why a "War on Terrorism" is doomed to fail.
Not trying to take away from the treatment of Native Americans... but..
Isn't there a difference between the United States today than there was back then? In that, not all of the states were united. Or is that not the case?
Isn't there also a difference between a civilian shooting fellow civilians, and an army attacking civilians of a different nation?
32 were killed 33 including the gun mans body.
Well, that too. But then.. I'm not going there. Different situation. Neither of them good ones. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Wasn't the US officially at war with the Indians at the time? Certainly the Army was conducting "policing actions" against the Indians for random raids and "terrorism" of the settlers.
It's interesting to note, also, that even the Indians acknowledged that they didn't own the land on which they lived. They had no such concept of owership of land and were often more than happy to "sell" the land (take money for something that they didn't own). They had a big laugh thinking that they'd screwed the whites out of valuables ...but the laugh was on them, wasn't it? He who laughs last, ....?
But as long as we're quantifying "most people dead evar!!" we should at least establish some qualitative parameters.
One civilian gunman attacking fellow civilian countrymen is quite different than a 19th century US cavalry unit attacking Indians. I think the differences should be obvious; lots of well armed and well trained soldiers, it was war, Indians weren't of the same nationality, weren't considered people, etc.
There's a serious pyschological difference between a community member killing those outside of his community ( a soldier in war, for instance), and a community member turning against his own community.
The majority of Indian tribes were subsistence forest dwellers. They raised corn, but hunted a great deal. They needed a lot of forest to support their tribe and way of life.
It may be hard for your old, foggy mind to wrap around such an idea, but the Indians lived in a non-ownership society. Certainly one group of Indians lived in a geographic region and defended it. But defending communal resources is a far cry from parceling the land and divving up the deer.
The whites wanted the forest for various reasons; farming, lumber, precious metals. So they formed treaties with the Indians, which the whites consistently broke as soon as it was convenient to do so. These treaties weren't selling the whites anything, it was an agreement to let the whites use the land the Indians lived on. Once the Indians realized the whites weren't to be trusted, they resisted. After that, the US just took the land from them, and forced them off it.
Separate names with a comma.