Did the White Man Ruin America?

Across the upper mid-west there are very few black or yellow people and very few blacks in the northwest. There are just too many roads and buildings to have all been built by such very small minorities. If one takes a look at a typical construction site around America one doesn't see any black or yellow people. Rather they tend to be a mix of white, including eastern Europeans, and Hispanics. Know what most Hispanics are? Native Americans who speak Spanish.

 

The black man sold his brother into slavery. The yellow man emigrated here to build railroads. Neither would have been possible without the ingenuity of the white man.

You'll notice there were no major African tribes colonizing other parts of the world.

 

Are you always this sensitive? It was a play off what the chief said, so it's okay to stop freaking out now.

Yes, we're more advanced because of white colonization, and there's no doubt about that. I even said I believe the U.S. is better off that "the white man" colonized the U.S. All I said pretty much was now I can see why others might feel differently.

If you could hunt and fish all day, and "have fun" all night, would you easily turn that life down?

 

I'm a pretty big conservative. Well fiscally anyway believing in small government. Before joining this site I would have thought you statement was ridiculous.

Unfortunately I think I'm starting to believe a good number of people feel that way.

 

It took me a few years to come tot hat realization, but it is something I've truly come to believe.

 

So you are asserting that JC Penny's invented moccasins and buckskin jackets. I don't think that the native Americans would have survived the winters in Idaho, Montana or the Dakotas for over 1000 years if they had not learned to make excellent clothing out of animal skins. Your statement is idiotic sir. Cheers

 

Sure they did. Do you think they survived the norther winters without clothes?

 

Did the White Man Ruin America?

That statement is racist.

 

It is a silly thing to even consider. The whole world has changed in the past few hundred years. Trying to judge something like that by today's standards is a useless endeavor.

 

Whether or not the white man ruined America is debatable, I lean towards saying that they didn't.

Now some bad things happened to my people (at the hands of white men) but I cannot in clear conscience hold that against anyone today. It's in the past.

 

Logical attitude to take. Im Aussie, but appears to me native Americans are sensible often humble and likable people - obviously im many moons away across the great water so its just an impression i get.

I often wonder with native American and Australians, if they got to chose who arrived and settled which race that would be - because lets face it where both were at they couldnt have defended themselves so it was only a matter of who and when. Would they prefer what they see in Muslim nations? Perhaps extensions of China, India or maybe Africa rather than the first world Europe brought with it?

 

We're pretty integrated now. Only my grand parents really practice any kind of tradition.

I think it worked out pretty well in North America. The standard of living is better than the other places you mentioned, and it's usually more open-minded and free here. Even though we went through hell back in the day, it did work out in the end for us.

 

Tis racist. No doubt.

But in my experience (affirmative action/racial quotas) the left is more than willing to be racist if it fits them.

 

So blacks and Indians, who were a minority in America, built everything?

 

thats been debunked numerous times on this forum.

 

How do you debunk established and agreed upon historical facts? Do leftists just change the definitions and thereafter make a claim that the 'facts' no longer fit the 'new' leftist reality?

 

its easy to debunk when there are no facts presented to back up such false claims.

 

Only in your opinion, which thankfully, matters not.

 

There are many such quotes by native American chiefs or leaders that fall along the same lines. However most if not all of these quotes are rather dubious and most likely they were merely dreamed up.

The natives did not enjoy a life of leisure despite some claims to the contrary. We know that virtually all of the in north america lived as stone age hunter gatherers. In the central and south american regions several native nations developed more advanced civilizations at least in their sophistication and building. They still remained stuck in a primitive state however.

Living as a stone age hunter / gatherer is not a life with an abundance of leisure in fact it is quite the opposite. Anywhere on Earth you can find evidence of our ancestors living in such a manner and it is always the same. Life is a brutal struggle to get food to eat. Wildlife does not cooperate animals migrate and humans have to follow them. Eventually groups of hunter gatherers will collide with each other resulting in tribal war for access to the most important resources. Even the best hunters find it difficult if not next to impossible to bag game in the dead of winter when animals tend to stay in one place for long periods of time even in hibernation for some species. Winter is when you need more food to combat the effects of cold.

As a result of these universal problems the natives had very short life expectancies. It is often said that they treated their elderly with respect and admiration which is probably true since very very few of them made it past the age of 40 which made them a unique person.

They had a very high infant mortality rate diseases went unchecked and often made worse due to their behavior towards the sick such as gathering together to comfort the sick thus spreading the illness even further. Most tribes in north america had a starving time which lasted through winter and into spring because they had little or no way to preserve enough food to last through the winter and game could not be found. They had constant never ending tribal warfare with virtually all other tribes as a result of the need to find and gather the wild game which migrated. The term stranger is the same as enemy in most native dialects. In order to prove ones worthiness as a man one had to hunt and defeat enemies. This resulted in never ending attacks on others often involving travels of hundreds of miles on foot just to fight someone.

The list goes on and on about how brutal and difficult life was for the natives of north america. But of course they were happy with it simply because they knew nothing better.

The natives of central and south america were more advanced of course developing agriculture, sophisticated societies and religions etc. This was offset by the genocide practiced by the Aztecs for religious reason. Life was not very leisurely when you lived in constant threat of being captured and sacrificed along with all of your family and friends just to satiate some aztec gods.

Even if the quote from chief " two eagles " is legitimate it clearly paints a rather bad picture of life for native women.

Even the claim that there was no pollution is false. Natives had a major impact on the environment within the limits of their technology.

 

Just because some low information liberal (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)bags don't like the facts, that doesn't make them any less facts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWjUnVxDtqM

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=25b_1418094538

http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/slavetra.html

It's gotta drive you nuts to be proven WRONG, over and over again.

 

Some African nations sold another nation to the europeans. that is not selling your brother. selling your brother would be say, the Ashanti selling Ashanti into slavery to the european. Im not aware of that being the practice. You can try and prove me wrong though by all means.

 

You really WERE born last night, huh? Ashantis definitely sold Ashantis into slavery. Fologias definitely sold Fologias into slavery. And considering that black people have been calling each other BROTHER since the Sixties, I'd say the concept of brother selling brother into slavery is about as accurate as it gets.

Oh, I've already done that. Many times. You ARE wrong, all the way around.

There wasn't a NeoCon Republican party in America in the 16th Century who went into Africa and just started kidnapping blacks. For that matter, there wasn't a NeoCon Republican Party in America in the 16th Century. For that matter, there wasn't even Republican Party in existence in America in the 16th Century. For that matter, there wasn't even an America in the 16th Century.

European nations went to Africa to colonize areas. Africans sold each other into slavery. That's the reality. It's also called HISTORY.

You liberals REALLY need to grow up. You don't know jack about anything.

 

and of course you provide no evidence for this statement. am i surprised?

 

I already posted several links. You need to learn how to read.

 

none of those mention shanti. didnt you read them?