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

You have a primary source.....oh never mind..more poop talk.

This forum has really gone down hill, WHERE ARE ALL THE INTELLECTUALS AT!?!?!?!?

 

When one has progressed of course and not continued its terrorism and indiscriminate bombing campaigns on INNOCENT women and children AROUND THE GLOBE.

but we all know Americans condone this type of campaign (Libya, Iraq, Iran, ivory coast etc)

 

No, I'll have to walk you through it.

In my reply, I was specifically referring to the bolded part of your post, meaning I wouldn't ask them that, and if they told me it wouldn't be relevant to what I do regarding reparations (for example), NOT that I wouldn't talk to them/listen at all.

 

I'm quite anti-christian, but I'm unsure what you're saying here. People blame their religion for something? I'm sure there's prejudice out there, I guess. Even if people acknowledge that they were wronged so long ago, they would still suggest things should be better by now, fairly or unfairly.

 

No. Not really.
If the settlers routed the NAI in the name of Christianity, ( the context of the post I to) then I suggested it would be more Christian to allow them some respect for following their ownvfairh, though I recognise that gathering new members to christianity is high on the list of priorities.

 

So you are proving genocide, using a single incident dates in 1999?

Just want to make sure I understand you.

 

By the standard in which you define "genocidal maniacs", yes in fact that standard WAS common during that period among humans across the globe.

Ahh.. I must not get on board with your absolutley outlandish perspectives and opinions simply because I don't understand and am ignorant?

Come on. Do better, and less arrogantly.

 

Nobody is ignoring anything.

Everybody, except a very small faction of hyper wokeists, are able to evaluate and analyze history in a logical and full encompassing format that doesn't pigeon hole their beliefs and agendas around cherry picked half truths and partial information including rationalization from all perspectives.

You have to seriously ignore large swaths of history, normalcy during the period, etc. to arrive at the conclusions you do.

 

Man's morality has been the same since the dawn of civilization in Africa where we were given the commandments [mt. Sinai] remember that?

Less excuses please.

 

Lol.

So you desire to hold a certain fragment (likely racially driven) to a standard of morality you desire to hold nobody else to in an effort to demonize them?

Really?

 

You doubt Mr ross' assessment?

Amadou diallo.

 

Again.

A single incident in 1999 represents present day genocide?

Such absolutley ridiculous perspectives.

 

LOL.. Cause when anyone interacts with you... never mind. Be honest. Where did Indigenous culture invade from again?

 

Wow, and the goal posts shift yet again... One hope all of your teeth are in tact... But when did it become a narrative change? Just because you couldn't address the actual question asked? So, here we are, off on another Esau tangent because... well, not interested this time.

 

What part of Mr. Ross' statement "That genocide and violence is still on the menu" don't you understand?

Come on folk. Give me some belief.

 

I've got primary sources coming out of my ears because this is how istudy. This is not Twitter bro.

 

What does this random sequence of words mean?? Hmm.

 

LOL.. yeah.. the only thing you are rolling are the goal posts... Ta.

 

I've just mentioned Diogo Cao on the last page to another naysayer. That bro, is what scholars call a primary source. Do you understand?

 

Genocide is when you target a "race" purely on the basis that they are THAT race.

 

So your defense is that you don't have a first hand account of it, so it didn't exist? Laughable. Intellectual dishonesty at its best.

 

So essentially what you're supporting on this thread. Got it.

 

Eww, that's soo cryptic of you or maybe just poop.

 

In the scholarly world, when you make an assertion about historic events, if you don't have primary sources it's essentially poop because either a, you've not researched it thoroughly enough or b, it's just personal opinion.

 

So, really, serious question here, are you denying that the indigenous tribes in N and S America didn't migrate here? Really? I mean, are you suggesting that spontaneous indigenous folks just "happened"? I mean, hide behind your dogma all you want, but the consequence of your assertion is that because you haven't a single ability to create a primary source, it didn't happen. It really is convenient to take this approach to conversation. The archeologists may want to have a word with you....