Gyasi Ross tells White Americans to go back to Europe, end Thanksgiving and give him back land

However steal not actually imperialism. And with the modern left do they still thing intermarriage racial groups to be done sort time against humanity. I assume Alexandre Dumas the Author of the Three Musketeers was part African and the character of Porthos, as best as I can recall seems to have been based loosely upon his father or grandfather. And the occasional appearance of sickle cell anemia in Italy indicates that some of those Roma ladies back in the day were quite get it on with some black gladiators . However none of that has anything to do with the scourge if colonialism

 

Amadou dialllo

 

Is that wakanda speak?

 

The point being, native American feudalism should not be a reason why colonial violence should be accepted

 

Emmet till

 

Attitudes about what to think and how to behave towards other people and their countries are cumulative.
They become the norm in the present
Unless
someone either singularly or as a group is in a position to change things when the relevant culture is ready to listen.
Slavery in one example.
Women's right to vote is another.
Acceptance of gay people is yet another.
Sport for disabled people is another.
As is mental health as a treatable illness.
Historic is relevant as a jumping off point.
It is also the context from which a culture emerges.
If you don't acknowledge that white western cultures were inherently cruel and grasping, you don't see how they have changed.
The people who settled what is now America were brought up in the 17th century when torture, murder, civil war, international war, exploration for gain, conquest and religious persecution were common. And accepted as normal even within a Christian background.

Their moral compass was completely untroubled by murdering a few people who happened already to live where they wanted to live.

The people I have less sympathy for are those white now American people of European descent who, 200 years after the first Europeans, acted out the same rationality. Their approach to other cultures, even if indigenous, had nor changed. It had actually begun to change in Europe...the first ideas about respecting human rights appeared around 1800 in England when King George III signed the abolition of slavery act in 1807 after the Haitian Revolution. (Toussaint).
William Wilberforce had been championing abolition for years.
But it wasn't until 1865 that the US abolished slavery. IMO because it was cut off from the cultural influences of Europe.
However it is true that the attitudes towards ownership of orher peoples property/country was still brutal...and didn't even end with WW2. Evidence the Balkans.
And Russia in Ukraine.
19th century Americans were culturally excused from stealing land and killing the inhabitants. Today we are a tad more sensitive to it.
So the OP was right by today's standards in Europe, but wrong in the context of the time in which it happened.
How you indidually feel about it depends on your moral starting point.

 

Holocaust denial has become so normalized by ppl like that

 

It has never been normalized and no one here has denied it

 

No. End. Of. Discussion.

 

He can stamp his little feet and seeth with impotent rage..... But that's all he can do.


Such people are good for nothing more than entertainment purposes.

 

I don't want to change history. I just want to reduce trying to have a society live in the past, no matter how much you want it.

 

Don't want it, want you guys to stop denying it happened.

 

The point being is that it is largely over and done with. History exists to tell us of what we should not do in the future not to brow beat those who live in the present

 

Yes, it also exists to right the wrongs done, no?

 

Thanksgiving is about taking land and establishing a place in our country by force. Is it not?

 

What contracts? And what enforcement of said contracts?

 

Wouldn't it be a problem all the time?
Killing each other doesn't seem fine. Laws that are biased doesn't correct the problem, does it?

 

What is sin?
Can people be punished for sin they never had control over?
Who/what determines a sin?
Sin only is a concept among a minority group of humans.

 

I've got no idea what you're going on about. Just spill it.

 

What is sin?
You claimed it, define it.
Simple enough for you?

 

No it's not it's about being thankful.

 

In this case, the contract with a native tribe granting some of that tribe's lands to the British Crown in exchange for the British Army's assistance in defeating one (or probably more) of that tribe's enemies, the aforementioned lands then being awarded by The Crown to some of its commanders and soldiers, one of whom was my distant ancestor. This all before the USA was a thing, of course.

 

Correct

 

What contract?
What enforced it?

 

I just told you 'what contract.' It was enforced by the same thing that any agreement between nations is enforced with- a desire to continue mutually beneficial relations which would be undermined by refusing to abide by agreements. Contrary to popular belief, Native Americans had very healthy understandings of both land ownership and the usefulness of powerful allies. Not all of their land was 'stolen' (though certainly a lot of it was, and some of it by other natives...). Some of it was quite shrewdly traded, and in some cases (as I suspect this case) in exchange for aid in acquiring land from their 'fellow' (read: enemy) tribes.