Like it or not Euros, we're the best country in the world

[Saint Marcus]

US not a wamonger? tell that to the Native Americans...

[Lemmy]

Britain and France destoryed so many cultures and socities all around the world, there coloinal merticliasm and imperalsim destoryed the colonies they thought were theirs.

oh yeah, the great "they did it, so we can do it too"-argument

[Saint Marcus]

yep, two wrongs make a right in the US

[Sardaukar]

US not a wamonger? tell that to the Native Americans...

This wasn't warmongering. We were just exerting our Will to Power

[flash9286]

exuse me spain wiped out all the socities in south america and britian in north america and canada we killed far less Natvie americans then Britain and Spain

[johncmcleod]

The US attacking the Indians was just part of European thinking...ALL Europeans at that time thought white men were superior to Indians. Don't forget about Columbus. Yes, fighting the Indians was wrong and we acknowledge that now. And of course slavery was wrong also, but who brought that? The Dutch. It was brought by accident as a Dutch slave ship landed there accidentally. War Hawks were people who were outraged at the British who were taking American seamen prisoner, and they cried for war and they got it. But if you call fighting with Indians being a Warmonger, than I don't know what to call Britain.

[Wernazuma III]

Slavery brought by accident? OK, Dutch were the main traders, but the English (and early Americans and English are still the same, you can both be proud about them or not) knew slaves and it would have come to America without the Dutch too.

ALL Europeans at that time thought white men were superior to Indians.

This is only partially true. It goes for the common man, but several, especially catholic, clergymen (not only Las Casas) thought differently. Not race was the criterium but faith (what was no less eurocentric and chauvinistic of course)

Yes, fighting the Indians was wrong and we acknowledge that now.

From what I've experienced in discussions about the amerindian genocide(s), this is lamentably NOT the unquestioned shared opinion.

I don't know what to call Britain

They heroically took the white man's burden on their shoulders...



(US-)Americans and Europeans were both very often acting completely immoral towards the "primitive" societies and one could probably go on for decades throwing mud on each other. Let's face it: In the attitude towards the weaker "primitive" peoples European and American behavior aren't very different.

[flash9286]

well how about Britian and Africa and India

[Saint Marcus]

exuse me spain wiped out all the socities in south america and britian in north america and canada we killed far less Natvie americans then Britain and Spain

and that makes it right?

funny kind of ethics you have there in the US. If one nation commits genocide, the US is allowed to do it too.

And you killed more native Americans than any other nation, other than Spain and Britain. Still makes you the 3rd worst Native American killers in history. Something to be proud of, eh?

[Saint Marcus]

The US attacking the Indians was just part of European thinking...

The US was an independent nation. Can't blame it on us

But if you call fighting with Indians being a Warmonger, than I don't know what to call Britain.

Britons were warmongers too. Same for Spain, Holland, France, etc. But also the US. You're no better than the colonial powers in that regard.

[flash9286]

no i was responding to a post that something about americans killing Native Americans from somebody from Britian so i thought i would point that out no where in my post did i condone it.

[Saint Marcus]

so you admit your nation is a warmonger? at least in the wars with the natives?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by johncmcleod
War Hawks were people who were outraged at the British who were taking American seamen prisoner, and they cried for war and they got it.

This from an American site:



'War Hawks

The Congress that met from 1811 to 1813 included a number of young and outspoken members who were foes of Great Britain and supporters of expansion by the United States. Western War Hawks, most notably the new Speaker of the House, Henry Clay of Kentucky, called for war against England and eyed Canada as a possible target of expansion. The Southern War Hawks, led by John C. Calhoun of South Carolina, cast longing glances at Texas and Florida.

In truth, British violations of American neutral rights (impressment, blockades, ship seizures and others) exerted little direct impact on the South and West. The core of the War Hawk agenda was expansion.

Correspondingly, New England and New York shipping and commercial interests-the people most directly impacted by the neutral rights violations-strongly opposed the war. They disliked losing ships to the British, but realized that war would completely shut down commerce.'

How does one expand without conflict? Politely ask inhabitants of other countries to move out of the way while you occupy their territory?

'Oh, excuse me Tecumseh, do you mind if I borrow your country? Chief Pontiac, are you sure you're using that stretch of land? I'd love to put a shopping mall there!'

This willingness to believe a lily-white history of the United States is sad beyond belief.

[DinoDoc]

If you're going to quote a site, please list the url.

[Saint Marcus]

https://www.outofmyass.com