Is the USA imperialist?

Posted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 7:04 am

sjc wrote:

Saitou wrote:

War started over Texas. In the treaty that ended the war we purchased the territory from Mexico.

Purchased? Like Manhattan? Smile

We know the poor track record the USA has on honoring treaties. Usually they are used to their advantage only.

That was the Dutch. Also, are we unique in that regard? I don't think so. That doesn't make it right but it is a blame that can be just about universally shared.

Quote:

First ones here? So what? That means everything? Did the first human here claim all the land for his race? or just his tribe? What is the land area and criteria which you think should apply?

sjc wrote:

Like I said, they snoozed, they lost. Rolling Eyes

You know that they didn't believe that anyone could actually own land.

They were wrong about that now weren't they? There were different tribes that considered certain territories their own and they did get into wars over such things.

sjc wrote:

I know that you can justify just about any kind of action as long as profit was involved. The old Manifest Destiny crap.

If the US is illegitimate because Indians were here first so is your beloved Canada. As is Mexico and probably ever other nation has displaced some other group before it was formed.

Thinker Joined: Nov 12, 2006 Posts: 423

Saitou wrote:

That was the Dutch. Also, are we unique in that regard? I don't think so. That doesn't make it right but it is a blame that can be just about universally shared.

How much land have you given back? Also, I happen to be part native.

Quote:

They were wrong about that now weren't they?

That statement is pure arrogance no different than when theists make such claims about other's religions.

Quote:

There were different tribes that considered certain territories their own and they did get into wars over such things.

They still didn't believe in personal ownership of land.

Quote:

If the US is illegitimate because Indians were here first so is your beloved Canada.

I'm not British. I'm half French and the French treated them much better. Also, Canada has given back vast tracts of land as well. How much of any real consequence has the USA given back? In fact the USA is still acting like it owns the world while many other nations have outgrown "empire" building. America wanted to be still called a Super Power, well this is what it means when you abuse that power.

Quote:

As is Mexico and probably ever other nation has displaced some other group before it was formed.

Still doesn't make it right, especially from a nation which asserts that it is the leader of the free world. As I had said, The USA is still just about the only nation which still believes that it owns the world. England is just following your lead and the USSR is gone and what's left of it, Russia, can barely run its own country. All else are small potatoes in comparison.

You can justify just about anything. That is a very amoral mentality.

The original thrust of this thread isn't WAS America imperialistic, but if it still IS. And the answer is yes it is.

Posted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 7:44 am

sjc wrote:

Saitou wrote:

That was the Dutch. Also, are we unique in that regard? I don't think so. That doesn't make it right but it is a blame that can be just about universally shared.

How much land have you given back? Also, I happen to be part native.

I don't own any land. AND BFD if you "happen to be part native". Was it rape?

Quote:

They were wrong about that now weren't they?

sjc wrote:

That statement is pure arrogance no different than when theists make such claims about their religions.

No, it is simply a fact that they were wrong.

Quote:

There were different tribes that considered certain territories their own and they did get into wars over such things.

sjc wrote:

They still didn't believe in personal ownership of land.

Are you claiming to know about all Indian societies? Also of what relevance is that? If a tribe or nation can own territory there's still land ownership.

Quote:

If the US is illegitimate because Indians were here first so is your beloved Canada.

sjc wrote:

I'm not British. I'm half French and the French treated them much better.

The French also took land, waged war with some tribes, and spread disease. I have ancestry that is Canadian French and quite probably some Indian ancestry but guess what? it's completely irrelevant. By bringing up race so much you simply prove my theory that liberals think about race (and have some racist views) more than conservatives.

sjc wrote:

Also, Canada has given back vast tracts of land as well. How much of any real consequence has the USA given back? In fact the USA is still acting like it owns the world while many other nations have outgrown "empire" building.

HA! So they threw bigger bones in the form of land--Canada has tons of unused land. We give some casinos! (the entire guilt laden argument is just dumb)

Quote:

As is Mexico and probably ever other nation has displaced some other group before it was formed.

sjc wrote:

Still doesn't make it right, especially from a nation which asserts that it is the leader of the free world. As I had said, The USA is still just about the only nation which still believes that it owns the world. England is just following your lead and the USSR is gone and Russia can barely run its own country. All else are small potatoes in comparison.

Wow. Nice paragraph to show anyone with a clue that you are clueless.

sjc wrote:

You can justify just about anything. That is a very amoral mentality.

I'm not justifying anything--I don't think these historical events require justification. I do want to provoke some thought and clarify some commonly held misconceptions. I also like to kick people in the ass who eat the "America is wicked and guilty" crap with a large spoon. I feel no guilt in being white or American.

Thinker Joined: Nov 12, 2006 Posts: 423

Saitou wrote:

I don't own any land.

That is a collective you.

Quote:

AND BFD if you "happen to be part native". Was it rape?

Hardly. They were even married as well. I can see why you would think otherwise since that was a standard act with your (singular) ancestors. (You asked for that.)

hillbillyatheist, please lock this thread before it descents any further into a flame war, which was most probably his original intent to begin with. Just like many of the other threads he has recently been posting with topics design for such a thing.

Posted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 8:28 am

it's not a flame war yet. (and I hope it doesn't become one)

Thinker Joined: Nov 12, 2006 Posts: 423

hillbillyatheist wrote:

it's not a flame war yet. (and I hope it doesn't become one)

You don't think that that rape comment wasn't flamebait? By his responses it is going to be a flamewar weither any of us falls for it or not. It is clear what his real intentions are.

Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 12:53 am

sjc wrote:

hillbillyatheist wrote:

it's not a flame war yet. (and I hope it doesn't become one)

You don't think that that rape comment wasn't flamebait? By his responses it is going to be a flamewar weither any of us falls for it or not. It is clear what his real intentions are.

It wasn't flame bait as I was making a clever point. You were suggesting that some part of your (genetic) ancestry gave you more clout in a discussion and I was demonstrating that such thinking is garbage.

Ultimately we are all just human beings and we can all trace our ancestry back to Africa. Every nation has an ugly past and every person has ugly ancestors. Maybe some of us have ancestors who were great heroes or who were unfortunate victims--that has nothing to do with who we are as individuals. If my great grandfather was a hero does that make me one? If he was instead a victim does that make me one? No to both questions.

Graduate Thinker Joined: Oct 11, 2005 Posts: 827

Saitou wrote:

.

CedrickStanton wrote:

California did not want to join the USA, the Native American held lands were not consulted on the issue, and even after the Mexico-USA war, the territory of Deseret desired to be an independent state.

California was a territory of Mexico and was sold to us in the treaty that ended the war. It is again not relevant what the people in that territory wanted when the argument is that it was not stolen from Mexico. You know it's also possible that not everyone in the southern states that seceded wanted to do so (not relevant either).

So, what land was stolen from Mexico?

Ignorant. California (and by California I mean basically northern California where most everyone lived, not SoCal or Baja) had declared itself independent from Mexico, and was in a state of rebellion. Mexico did not have enough capable military personnel to even attempt to keep order in California. California had it's own constitution, flag, etc. at the time, much like Texas but with vastly less population.

Anyway, your nonsense about the important bit being "stolen from Mexico" is the core of the straw man argument. The thread is called "Is the US Imperialist?" It's more important that the U.S. broke international law, and less important that the land was "stolen" specifically from Mexico.

In terms of the U.S. being imperialist, how about the history of Hawaii or the Philippines?

--Cedrick

Graduate Thinker Joined: Oct 11, 2005 Posts: 827

Saitou wrote:

sjc wrote:

Saitou wrote:

That was the Dutch. Also, are we unique in that regard? I don't think so. That doesn't make it right but it is a blame that can be just about universally shared.

How much land have you given back? Also, I happen to be part native.

I don't own any land. AND BFD if you "happen to be part native". Was it rape?

Wow. That's really a really shockingly ignorant thing to say, Saitou. If I'm not mistaken you even live in New England, where very few families descended from the original settlers are NOT of mixed Indian/settler blood. Myself, I can trace my ancestry back to the Mayflower english, and dating back to early colonials, I'm descended from them, members of the Pequot tribe, Nashantucket tribe, and Anishnabe tribe. If your family has been in New England for two hundred years or so, odds are extremely good that you're part Indian too whether your family acknowledges it or not.

--Cedrick

Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 6:08 am

CedrickStanton wrote:

Saitou wrote:

sjc wrote:

Saitou wrote:

That was the Dutch. Also, are we unique in that regard? I don't think so. That doesn't make it right but it is a blame that can be just about universally shared.

How much land have you given back? Also, I happen to be part native.

I don't own any land. AND BFD if you "happen to be part native". Was it rape?

Wow. That's really a really shockingly ignorant thing to say, Saitou.

It absolutely is not ignorant although it was meant to be shocking. See my previous post for the explanation.

CedrickStanton wrote:

If I'm not mistaken you even live in New England, where very few families descended from the original settlers are NOT of mixed Indian/settler blood.

Fine. So what?

CedrickStanton wrote:

Myself, I can trace my ancestry back to the Mayflower english, and dating back to early colonials, I'm descended from them, members of the Pequot tribe, Nashantucket tribe, and Anishnabe tribe.

Goodie! So what?

CedrickStanton wrote:

If your family has been in New England for two hundred years or so, odds are extremely good that you're part Indian too whether your family acknowledges it or not.

We might be "part Indian". We might also be "part Jewish" although I never checked. For all I know I might have a very distant black ancestor (not counting evolutionary origins of mankind). Again I say. So what?

Why would it matter if I was "part Indian" or anything else? What would I inherit besides some now watered down genes?

Graduate Thinker Joined: Oct 11, 2005 Posts: 827

Saitou wrote:

Wow. That's really a really shockingly ignorant thing to say, Saitou.

It absolutely is not ignorant although it was meant to be shocking. See my previous post for the explanation.

CedrickStanton wrote:

If I'm not mistaken you even live in New England, where very few families descended from the original settlers are NOT of mixed Indian/settler blood.

Quote:

Fine. So what?

So ... if you were paying attention to your regional history, it was extremely common for colonists and Indians of the area to inter-marry. That's the way in which many of the northeastern Indian tribes "disappeared" as opposed to the butchery of the plains Indians. So ... it's pretty unlikely that SJC's mixed ancestry was on account of rape, as you suggested ... unless your comment was based in racially biased ignorance.

Quote:

We might be "part Indian". We might also be "part Jewish" although I never checked. For all I know I might have a very distant black ancestor (not counting evolutionary origins of mankind). Again I say. So what?

Why would it matter if I was "part Indian" or anything else? What would I inherit besides some now watered down genes?

So WAS IT RAPE?!? Shocked

You claim that you were just being intentionally trying to shock SJC, and that you're not ignorant. If that's the case, try to comport yourself with a modicum of dignity.

Also, the important distinction is that many people of the northeast are the descendents of indigenous Indians, and colonists who integrated together to survive in that area. That's a different kind of society from one in which the colonists murdered the people who lived in a region, took their stuff, and lived there. Is that wasted on you?

--Cedrick

Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 6:46 am

CedrickStanton wrote:

So ... if you were paying attention to your regional history, it was extremely common for colonists and Indians of the area to inter-marry.

That's fine by me.

CedrickStanton wrote:

That's the way in which many of the northeastern Indian tribes "disappeared" as opposed to the butchery of the plains Indians.

Makes sense.

CedrickStanton wrote:

So ... it's pretty unlikely that SJC's mixed ancestry was on account of rape, as you suggested ... unless your comment was based in racially biased ignorance.

The odds are irrelevant. Also it isn't me displaying "racially biased ignorance". I never suggested it was the Indian who was the rapist. What does race have to do with rape?

Quote:

We might be "part Indian". We might also be "part Jewish" although I never checked. For all I know I might have a very distant black ancestor (not counting evolutionary origins of mankind). Again I say. So what?

Why would it matter if I was "part Indian" or anything else? What would I inherit besides some now watered down genes?

So WAS IT RAPE?!? Shocked

CedrickStanton wrote:

You claim that you were just being intentionally trying to shock SJC, and that you're not ignorant. If that's the case, try to comport yourself with a modicum of dignity.

I was trying to shock everyone reading the thread into having an interesting thought--which would not be a recreation of a brutal act of rape.

CedrickStanton wrote:

Also, the important distinction is that many people of the northeast are the descendents of indigenous Indians, and colonists who integrated together to survive in that area.

What part of the discussion is this distinction relevant to?

CedrickStanton wrote:

That's a different kind of society from one in which the colonists murdered the people who lived in a region, took their stuff, and lived there.

Sounds like the kind of point I'd make.

CedrickStanton wrote:

Is that wasted on you?

Not at all. I think it's you who are missing something.

SJC volunteered he happens to be part Indian. That's relevant why? He's also part French who came here and did great evil to the Indians by SJC's own judgment. So is he a victim or a villain because of these facts? He is neither because of these things.

Race appears to matter LESS to me than it does to you and SJC.

Graduate Thinker Joined: Oct 11, 2005 Posts: 827

Saitou wrote:

The odds are irrelevant. Also it isn't me displaying "racially biased ignorance". I never suggested it was the Indian who was the rapist. What does race have to do with rape?

Way to miss the point, Saitou. It's interesting that the only way you could grok how your statement could be perceived as racist was to assume that people thought you meant the Indian were the rapist.

Quote:

What would I inherit besides some now watered down genes?

By the way, what are watered down genes? I interviewed Matt Hale once, and it sounds like something he'd say.

Quote:

I was trying to shock everyone reading the thread into having an interesting thought--which would not be a recreation of a brutal act of rape.

I did have an interesting thought. It made me think that SJC's Canadian people possess a kind of quiet dignity that is utterly foreign to clans of aquatic New England rapists who regularly drag themselves from the sea to force themselves upon the daughters of coastal villages. Then these unfortunate damsels must bear their half-breed young, until one day these watered down genetic children will return to the depths of the ocean to serve their dark master ... Dagon!

No really ... I have no idea what you were going for there, but I don't think it worked.

Quote:

SJC volunteered he happens to be part Indian. That's relevant why? He's also part French who came here and did great evil to the Indians by SJC's own judgment. So is he a victim or a villain because of these facts? He is neither because of these things.

Oh, hardly. And by SJC's own judgement? I don't think so, pal. He said he's not half BRITISH remember? He's half FRENCH. The French came to the New World in smaller numbers, and pretty much got along peacefully with the Indians.

It's relevant because in the context of a thread about American Imperialism, SJC comes from a culturally similar society to the United States that had to contend with similar social issues (ie: native americans) and managed to handle them without resorting to genocide. You bringing rape into the conversation was only shocking to the extent which it revealed your appalling lack of manners, and desperation to remove his moral high ground. I mean really, you're questioning the legitimacy of SJC's lineage now when he's got you over a barrel?

First of all, you should know better. But why even stoop to that, Saitou?

--Cedrick

Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 1:28 am

CedrickStanton wrote:

Saitou wrote:

The odds are irrelevant. Also it isn't me displaying "racially biased ignorance". I never suggested it was the Indian who was the rapist. What does race have to do with rape?

Way to miss the point, Saitou. It's interesting that the only way you could grok how your statement could be perceived as racist was to assume that people thought you meant the Indian were the rapist.

Then inform me on the logic behind my statement being racist?

Quote:

What would I inherit besides some now watered down genes?

CedrickStanton wrote:

By the way, what are watered down genes? I interviewed Matt Hale once, and it sounds like something he'd say.

"Watered down genes" are genes of a variety that are overwhelmed by a much larger amount of other genes that the "watered down" ones become recessive. This has nothing to do with the "quality" of those genes. Again, my statement here isn't racist except to those who are hyper-sensitive to such things and see racism where there is none.

Quote:

I was trying to shock everyone reading the thread into having an interesting thought--which would not be a recreation of a brutal act of rape.

CedrickStanton wrote:

No really ... I have no idea what you were going for there, but I don't think it worked.

It didn't work for you but I hope it did for others.
I'll go over my intention one more time:
When I explained that when looking into the past there were bad actors and victims in the history of all and that therefore, there was pretty much universal blame that could be attributed to all (using the kind of logic I reject) SJC volunteered he was part indian suggesting it rendered him immune. This suggests to me that he beleives guilt can be inherrited but so can victimhood so that he was immune and that the victimhood was his "trump card" absolving him of the guilt of his other ancestors. I was repulsed by his suggestion and offered a repulsive rebuttal. Even using such bad logic of genetic inheritance bringing guilt or victim hood along with it not all ancestors of certain races are universally "bad" or "good". So this inspired my repulsive rebuttal of adding in a brutal act to the manner in which he might have inherited his trump card. I can do this without any racism on my part what-so-ever. I honestly think that race is almost entirely irrelevant and mostly an aesthetic thing. Culture will often go along for the ride with race but they are not a result of each other--geography is probably a bigger factor.

If I say or write something that seems racist you should look again because it is not.

Quote:

SJC volunteered he happens to be part Indian. That's relevant why? He's also part French who came here and did great evil to the Indians by SJC's own judgment. So is he a victim or a villain because of these facts? He is neither because of these things.

CedrickStanton wrote:

Oh, hardly. And by SJC's own judgement? I don't think so, pal. He said he's not half BRITISH remember? He's half FRENCH. The French came to the New World in smaller numbers, and pretty much got along peacefully with the Indians.

This is too funny. Are you serious? The quantity of wrong-doing of people similar to SJC's ancestors matters to SJC's own guilt or innocence in regards to a historical event that happened long before he was ever born? My point is that none of that matters to who he is or who I am or you or anyone else. Bring quantity into it and I can only chuckle. What you said amounts basically to, "People of French decent are less guilty than people of British decent". I reject it all.

CedrickStanton wrote:

It's relevant because in the context of a thread about American Imperialism, SJC comes from a culturally similar society to the United States that had to contend with similar social issues (ie: native americans) and managed to handle them without resorting to genocide.

Why is that relevant? What does SJC saying, "I'm less guilty than you are" add to the conversation? He offered it in response to my mention of historical guilt belonging to all.

CedrickStanton wrote:

You bringing rape into the conversation was only shocking to the extent which it revealed your appalling lack of manners, and desperation to remove his moral high ground.

HOW THE HELL CAN HE HAVE A MORAL HIGH GROUND?!!!??!!?! That's the racism! YOU CANNOT GENETICALLY INHERIT GUILT AND INNOCENCE!!!!

CedrickStanton wrote:

I mean really, you're questioning the legitimacy of SJC's lineage now when he's got you over a barrel?

LOL! If a rape was involved that'd make his lineage illegitimate? It would to people who think like you and he does but not to one who thinks like me. Oh yes. The beauty of my statement revealing such things. Thanks for demonstrating although I'm surprised it's you.

CedrickStanton wrote:

First of all, you should know better. But why even stoop to that, Saitou?

I hope people think and grow from this exchange. The lesson once again is, "You cannot genetically inherit guilt or innocence. Good or bad you do not own any of what your ancestors did or suffered".

Just Arrived Joined: Jan 15, 2007 Posts: 9

Saitou wrote:

What standard do you use in your determination?

My answer is yes, the US government is imperialist. Any group of people who impose their values on an entire society are, by definition, imperialists.


Create an account	Home · Articles · Downloads · Video Library · Forums · Chat Room · aStore