Christianity ruins families.

[OzzyKP]

You want to know when they brought this up? May 31. The day AFTER my 30th birthday. Great birthday present Mom & Dad. That was the last time I spoke to them, but they were pretty final about their opinion.

I am sorry.

Often time can heal wounds.

JM

Even though I know nothing about your parents, I agree with Jon. It has been less than a month, maybe they'll cool off soon. Still sucks though.

[David Floyd]

So who's is it Garth? Do you award it to the Comanches? Do you award it to the Apaches? This whole 'ancestral homeland' is bull. The reason for these conflicts between these groups is because they disagreed over precisely what constituted ancestral homeland.

Yet you are ready to award all land currently occupied by Israel to Israel, with no regard for Palestinians. Why is this? More importantly, are you sure religion isn't coloring your politics again?

Why can't you just acknowledge, as I do, that wrongs were committed by all parties, including the USA? That's all anyone here is trying to point out - I don't think anyone here would dispute the fact that some of the Native Americans were, indeed, savages. This doesn't preclude you from acknowledging that the world is a better place in spite of the wrongs committed in North America from 1492-18xx, as I also acknowledge.

[giblets]

So it was wrong for Muslims to invade Christian lands. Thank you. That's all I was after.

The fact that muslims took palestine from the christians in the 7th century does not justify christian invasions of palestine in the 11th century, idiot.

[Ben Kenobi]

Yet you are ready to award all land currently occupied by Israel to Israel, with no regard for Palestinians. Why is this? More importantly, are you sure religion isn't coloring your politics again?

There's documentation showing that Israel has lived there long before anyone else did.

The Palestinians are recent newcomers. There's a whole country for Palestinians. It's called Jordan, on the other side of the river.

Regardless of your politics, the history backs the Jewish claim. If it didn't back the Jewish claim, it would back the Christian claim via the Romans.

Why can't you just acknowledge, as I do, that wrongs were committed by all parties, including the USA?

I thought that's what I said earlier. the USA is not perfect. I never said that they were without sin or blemish.

That's all anyone here is trying to point out - I don't think anyone here would dispute the fact that some of the Native Americans were, indeed, savages. This doesn't preclude you from acknowledging that the world is a better place in spite of the wrongs committed in North America from 1492-18xx, as I also acknowledge.

I personally think that native americans are better off now than they were 500 years ago.

[Ben Kenobi]

The fact that muslims took palestine from the christians in the 7th century does not justify christian invasions of palestine in the 11th century, idiot.

Why not? If I steal your land, shouldn't I be permitted to take it back?

[giblets]

Why not? If I steal your land, shouldn't I be permitted to take it back?

Yeah, but your great-great-great-great-great-grandchildren are out of luck.

[Ben Kenobi]

Yeah, but your great-great-great-great-great-grandchildren are out of luck.

Copts never left.

[David Floyd]

There's documentation showing that Israel has lived there long before anyone else did.

The Palestinians are recent newcomers. There's a whole country for Palestinians. It's called Jordan, on the other side of the river.

Regardless of your politics, the history backs the Jewish claim. If it didn't back the Jewish claim, it would back the Christian claim via the Romans.

I know that's your opinion. I'm not gonna debate that with you, because I don't care. What I do find interesting, though, is that you just made an "ancestral homeland" argument in favor of Israel right after rejecting it for Native Americans. To wit:

Do you award it to the Comanches? Do you award it to the Apaches? This whole 'ancestral homeland' is bull.

So which is it? Help me out here.

I personally think that native americans are better off now than they were 500 years ago.

I quite agree. Descendants of slaves are also far better off than if slaves had never been imported into this country. Both of those are objectively true facts. But what is also true is that the US participated in some pretty god-awful acts, and whitewashing it by saying "the Europeans were worse" doesn't really cut it.

[giblets]

Copts never left.

Just admit that your stupid principle of injustices of the past always justifying warfare no matter how many centuries have past is almost as stupid as saying war is always okay. The fact that Muslims didn't slaughter all of the Christians when they conquered the area doesn't mean Christians are forever entitled to invade.

[David Floyd]

If it did mean that, it would also mean that dissatisfied Native Americans would be perfectly justified in slaughtering those of European descent.

[Ben Kenobi]

So which is it? Help me out here.

The only records we have as to what constitutes comanche 'ancestral territory' and apache 'ancestral territory', are their own verbal records.

This is why I brought up BC. There is substantial overlap between the claims. If you have two sources, both of which are equally valid, how do you decide between one or the other. This has never been settle here, as it was for the US, and as it was for the rest of Canada.

Personally, I think this should be a major priority, but it doesn't make me more sympathetic when the claims are so broad and vaguely defined.

This is different from Israel, where we have records showing the land belonging to Israel.

I quite agree. Descendants of slaves are also far better off than if slaves had never been imported into this country. Both of those are objectively true facts. But what is also true is that the US participated in some pretty god-awful acts, and whitewashing it by saying "the Europeans were worse" doesn't really cut it.

How is it whitewashing? It's true. How else do you explain people like Stand Watie? Saying that X did this and was worse than Y who didn't do this, isn't whitewashing. It's true.

America, back in the 19th century was considered to be the best of all the nations in terms of their conduct towards native peoples. Arguably behind only the British. We can't let our current prejudices colour the understanding of those times.

[Ben Kenobi]

Just admit that your stupid principle of injustices of the past always justifying warfare no matter how many centuries have past is almost as stupid as saying war is always okay. The fact that Muslims didn't slaughter all of the Christians when they conquered the area doesn't mean Christians are forever entitled to invade.

If it did mean that, it would also mean that dissatisfied Native Americans would be perfectly justified in slaughtering those of European descent.

One has been redressed, the other has not. It doesn't have to mean war. Cessation of territory works too.

[David Floyd]

This is different from Israel, where we have records showing the land belonging to Israel.

We have a record you would find 100% credible (ie, the Old Testament of the Bible) indicating that the Israelites were a conquering people - a particularly brutal conquering people, at that.

Saying that X did this and was worse than Y who didn't do this, isn't whitewashing. It's true.

You both said and implied from the very beginning that the US was not a conquering or oppressive nation, but rather a liberating one, towards the Native Americans. You have moved the goal posts multiple times, and backpedaled quite a bit, and now we're at the point of you arguing with me over the definition of "whitewashing".

Ben, why don't you look at the last 10 posts, compare them to the first 10 posts (as they pertain to this current discussion) and I think you'll find that you are making completely different arguments.

[David Floyd]

One has been redressed, the other has not. It doesn't have to mean war. Cessation of territory works too.

By that argument, the Treaty of Versailles was perfectly fair. Hey, it was a cessation of territory, right? The Germans agreed to crippling reparations, right? The fact that they only agreed under a blockade that was starving German civilians and an Allied army ready to invade Germany proper has nothing to do with it, dammit! That's the argument you are making.

The Native Americans, at least some of them, willingly ceded territory in much the same way the Germans willingly signed the Treaty of Versailles.

[Al B. Sure!]

The Israelites didn't conquer the land of Canaan from the Canaanites?