|
Post by AWAR on Mar 7, 2004 14:00:52 GMT -5
Europeans are guilty as both. If that be the case, all of Europe should have sit back and let Hitler conquer. After all to you its perfectly ok to conquer and submit one's neighbors. Hitler tried to conquer us, we kicked his ass, end of story. Perfectly reasonable. Why you didn't resist more, that's what YOU have to ask YOURSELVES, not us, and especially not me and my kin.
|
|
|
Post by Mouguias on Mar 7, 2004 17:05:42 GMT -5
This whole thing is growing a bit silly, but amusing anyway. Let`s go on for a while.
>>It is true that there were wars among African, North American [...] Wars, tyrannies and genocides. Just as when Euros arrived...and just the same as happened after whites LEFT (see Biafra, Nigeria, ethnic cleansing in Bangla Desh, slavery in Sudan and so on and on...). My point is: why only Europeans are accountable? Why should we be repentant when we have done just the same as anyone else? Why are only our genocides important? Can you imagine how much suffering has provoked the Otman empire? They used to import slaves to make them eunuchs and guard their serails. I will save you the depiction of the process to deprive them of their sexual organs, let`s say simply that 90 per cent of them died. I haven`t heard Louis Farrakhan ask for reparations on that question. Have you? If not, could you tell me WHY NOT? When ALL the crimes are accounted the same, then we Europeans will have to show shame on our forefathers`behaviour. Not before. We would be stupid otherwise.
>>were still relatively large populations before Europeans arrived. After Europeans arrived their numbers were either dramatically reduced [...] Yeah, and when they reached New Zealand it was relatively populated. However the Maoris had previously exterminated the natives, and developed a warrior culture, based upon periodical mutual massacres. So what? Have you thought that much of the violence and opression that covered the world for eons has remained unnoticed, due simply to the lack of written sources? We know the horrors of Zulu imperialism only because it took place near European settlements. God knows how many other bloodthirsty leaders has the world known, without leaving the least track.
>>How can you on one hand say there was warring between "tribes" in these lands before Europeans, then turn around and say they simply didn't have a clue there were other cultures at all, let alone how to submit them?
Easy. They carried out war, opression and mass killings only within their range of action. My point was (and I thought it was clear) that the Yoruba, or the Mongols, were as wicked and violent as Europeans...simply lacked the tecnological means to unfold a world-wide domination project.
>>Rubbish. People didn't live unorganized, and without law and order before Europeans arrived.
Of course so, and I never insinuated the contrary. But no one, in any of the five continents, managed to create an ideology which went beyond ethnic barriers, to regard everybody as a fellow human. No one, before the 16th century and the writings by Bartolome de las Casas. I remind you that "genocide" wasn`t defined before WWII, and "Human Rights" exist only after 1948. By the way, many non-Western leaders complain today that "Human Rights" is a Western idea, and that only due to cultural imperialism these "rights" are accepted all over the world. I agree with them.
>>You speak from a twisted highly ethnocentric point of view. Twisted I don`t think so, ethnocentric by all means, yes. How else, since I belong to an ethnic group? Perhaps you don`t?
>>Europeans are guilty as both. If that be the case, all of Europe should have sit back and let Hitler conquer
Cheese! Whatever we do, we lose! I forgot, since we are all "Europeans" we are guilty both for the sins of Hitler and those of Churchill. So, are all African Americans responsible for the Zebra killings (make a Google search if necessary)?
|
|
|
Post by Kukul-Kan on Mar 7, 2004 19:44:43 GMT -5
Thanks for the compliment Mouguias, but when it comes to your Nation’s history everybody seems t be knowledgeable . Actually it’s assumed that if the Aztecs hadn’t been defeated by the Spaniards and their Indian allies their Empire could have reached what’s now Colombia. The Aztecs were the last tribe to reach the valley of Mexico so all the land was already occupied. They started as mercenaries for other tribes but then they rose to be the masters of the entire region in less than 150 years. The Aztec defeat was due to several factors. One is the military superiority of the Spaniards, but that wasn’t enough (remember the Battle of the Sad Night or the first defeats in Tenochtitlan in which the Spaniards had severe casualties). Another one was the Indian allies. The Spaniards weren’t more than 2000 while their Indian allies were more than 80,000 as I said. The Aztecs weren’t exactly beloved because they were the masters in the region. The Spaniards were so fond of Tlaxcalans, their first allies, that, as I’ve already said, the were used as mercenaries in the conquest of the Philippines, Northern Mexico, Central America and Northern South America. They were also used as colonizers in the Spanish Colonies outside of the New Spain because they Spaniards knew they would be loyal to them. So you could find Tlaxcalan colonizers from Northern Mexico to Colombia. Tlaxcala also remained as a semi-independent republic within New Spain and they were some of the few Indians who were aloud to use Spanish clothes and owning horses. Another reason for the fall of the Aztec Empire was the well known smallpox. But the most important reason and the one that really determined the Aztec surrender was the fact the Spaniards cut the only water supply Tenochtitlan had. People assume the conquest of Mexico ended up in 1521 with the fall of the Aztec capital but it didn’t until the 1920’s when the last Northern Mexican Amerindian tribe accepted the rule of the Mexican Government.
|
|
|
Post by Tecumseh on Mar 8, 2004 0:30:32 GMT -5
Which is why I used quotations ("Aztecs" )... Also; as I said earlier, smallpox was spread maliciously, this is one of the first accounts of biological warfare.
I conceded that the Aztecs were violent. The reason I stated Native Americans were peaceful, is because they were, for the most part.
Had it not been for the Criollos, 90% of Aztec philosophy, mythology and literature would not have been destroyed.
|
|
|
Post by Tecumseh on Mar 8, 2004 0:37:26 GMT -5
Tecumseh, you qualify as racist. You're some sort of 'native-supremacist', and you blame white people for everything wrong in your life and "your people's" history. Where are you getting this from? lol You are taking this the wrong way. I'm trying to give you something to think about. This thread is ridiculous, you act as though people target whites for no reason. They're Native American, that's why I claim as my people. And for your info, I wasn't the one who brought them up, I just happen to know a little bit about Mexican history. Lol at this dude. You have no idea what you're talking about... My people are from southern-Ohio.
|
|
|
Post by Tecumseh on Mar 8, 2004 0:40:57 GMT -5
This whole thing is growing a bit silly, but amusing anyway. Let`s go on for a while. >>It is true that there were wars among African, North American [...] Wars, tyrannies and genocides. Just as when Euros arrived...and just the same as happened after whites LEFT (see Biafra, Nigeria, ethnic cleansing in Bangla Desh, slavery in Sudan and so on and on...). My point is: why only Europeans are accountable? Are you in denial? I wish I had time to son you all, unfortunately it's almost 1 am here in the midwest, and I could care-less.
|
|
|
Post by Kukul-Kan on Mar 8, 2004 8:41:25 GMT -5
Which is why I used quotations ("Aztecs" )... Also; as I said earlier, smallpox was spread maliciously, this is one of the first accounts of biological warfare. Whatever. You barely know something of Indians south of the border. By the way the first case of smallpox in Mexico wasn’t even among the Spaniards but in a Black slave of one of Cortés captains so go blame the blacks if you please. By the way infected corpses had already been used as early as in the crusades, perhaps earlier but I don’t know for sure, so it was not something new when the Spaniards used it. I guess you also believe the Noble Salvage myth a la “Dancing with wolves” or “The last of the Mohicans”. Now you’re talking out of your ass about a topic you clearly don’t know. Did you know that the Spaniards and not the Aztecs were to spread Náhuatl, the language of the Aztecs, among other Indians? Aztecs didn’t impose their language to their subjects, but the Spanish, Flemish and Italian friars for the most part that came to New Spain wanted to evangelize in a language they thought they’d understand much more easily so they did it in Náhuatl not in Spanish, “nahuatliizing” in the process communities that had never spoken that language. Plus the overwhelming majority of the codexes from which we get the knowledge of the Aztecs were done after the conquest. By the way Criollos are not Spaniards.
|
|
|
Post by Afrocentrik on Mar 8, 2004 8:56:46 GMT -5
Hitler tried to conquer us, we kicked his ass, end of story. Perfectly reasonable. Why you didn't resist more, that's what YOU have to ask YOURSELVES, not us, and especially not me and my kin. When you WE kicked his ass, who were you referring to? It was the United States, Britian, and Russia who kicked ass, more so the United States, which had a multiracial army. You're Serbian in descent am I not right? What did Serbs do in terms of imperialism? They were imperialized.
|
|
|
Post by Melnorme on Mar 8, 2004 9:01:00 GMT -5
When you WE kicked his ass, who were you referring to? It was the United States, Britian, and Russia who kicked ass, more so the United States, which had a multiracial army. You're Serbian in descent am I not right? What did Serbs do in terms of imperialism? They were imperialized. World War 2 in Yugoslavia : www.vojska.net/ww2/
|
|
|
Post by Kukul-Kan on Mar 8, 2004 9:09:00 GMT -5
When you WE kicked his ass, who were you referring to? It was the United States, Britian, and Russia who kicked ass, more so the United States, which had a multiracial army. You're Serbian in descent am I not right? What did Serbs do in terms of imperialism? They were imperialized. But didn’t most Blacks units in the segregated US army in WWII have non-combat positions? Serbians had their hard time with the German occupation and their Ustachi(sp?) allies.
|
|
|
Post by Afrocentrik on Mar 8, 2004 9:22:45 GMT -5
Wars, tyrannies and genocides. Just as when Euros arrived...and just the same as happened after whites LEFT (see Biafra, Nigeria, ethnic cleansing in Bangla Desh, slavery in Sudan and so on and on...). Biafra was a war of secession in Nigeria, not genocide. Prior to European colonialism, there was no entity known as Nigeria, just different kingdom[Hausaland, Kanem-Bornu, Iboland, Ife, Benin. There was war, but no different that WWI, WWII, 100 years war, Franco-Prussian war, etc. I am a Nigerian by descent, so will you educate me about Nigerian affairs? Europeans have never to my knowledge acknowledged the role they played in oppressing others and spreading their philosophy of white supreamcy. Using your logic, if I murdered you family and took over your house, why should I be repentant for it? Since other people have done the same its ok for me to do the same and be unrepentant? Look at your words before you speak. I'm not saying people should bear the shame of their forefathers. I'm saying people should acknowledge the crimes that were done instead of trying to rationlize it[ie, survival of the strongest as rationalization for subjecting non-European peoples]. There was no Zulu imperialism. The Zulus simply absorbed other related groups and those who make up Zulus comprise many different ethno-linguistic groups. As for the rest of your post its total garbage. Look at the populations of native Americans that once lived in Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the other Carribbean Islands, and the drastic reduction of Amerind populations in North America. This only occurred AFTER Europeans arrived. YORUBA???!!!! LOLOLOL, what are you talking about? Yoruba have NEVER practiced genocide and mass killings against other peoples. I'm Nigerian by descent and although I'm not a Yoruba, I certainly do know a great deal about them and mass killings and genocide is something they never did. Total bs AWAR. Europeans thought Africans were subhuman, so much that during slavery in the US, black slaves were thought to be 3/5 human. You definitely blew this one. Wooah, the Zebra killings, I see where this is going to! Look at the number of blacks lynched in the US and compare to the Zebra Killings. Not to mention many of those who did the lynching got off free without being punished. Why? You tell me. Look at John Paul Franklin, the serial race murderer who targeted blacks and interracial couples. We can cite individual cases of wrong doing, but in America at one time it was accepted as normal to lynch and slaughter blacks and other minorities. The KKK was started for that specific purpose under the noses of blacks and whites and most whites chose to do nothing about it. When blacks decided to defend themselves they're called violent and anti-white.
|
|
|
Post by Mouguias on Mar 8, 2004 10:15:19 GMT -5
>>Biafra was a war of secession in Nigeria, not genocide [...] I am a Nigerian by descent, so will you educate me about Nigerian affairs? Who? Me? God forbids, I don`t know much about that. But, just for curiosity, would you visit the following site? bianu.com/biafra_genocide1.htm
|
|
|
Post by Mouguias on Mar 8, 2004 10:23:14 GMT -5
As to the Yoruba, I never said they practised genocide against others. But I heard their religion was quite a cruel one. Am I wrong? Isn`t the Yorubas who practised the Juju cult, which later derived in Haiti into the Voodoo? (I ask this sincerely, I am not by any means an expert). I heard also that the Yoruba developed some sort of “sacred monarchy”. By definition, that must be an unfair system, where the priest and the king share power. In any case, were the Yoruba against slavery? Didn`t they, in any moment, enslave others, or helped the Europeans to do so? If so, they must be an amazing oddity in Africa. Of course I repeat it, I am not any expert in this topic.
|
|
|
Post by Said Mohammad on Mar 8, 2004 10:50:28 GMT -5
>>Biafra was a war of secession in Nigeria, not genocide [...] I am a Nigerian by descent, so will you educate me about Nigerian affairs? Who? Me? God forbids, I don`t know much about that. But, just for curiosity, would you visit the following site? bianu.com/biafra_genocide1.htmIbos were the ones who seceded so thats why they're claiming genocide. I know the history of that war and it was not genocide. A multiethnic Nigerian army
|
|
|
Post by Mouguias on Mar 8, 2004 10:59:15 GMT -5
>>Europeans have never to my knowledge acknowledged the role they played in oppressing others Really? Do yo go to the cinema very often? Do you ever watch TV? Whenever race relations, or recent history is dealed, I only see a choir of “my fault” chants from the white side. Remember, movies like “Amistad” or “Gandhi” were financed and performed by (gasp!) WHITES. >>if I murdered you family and took over your house, why should I be repentant for it? Since other people have done the same its ok for me to do the same and be unrepentant? If your FATHER murdered MY FATHER, I wouldn`t be entitled to blame you for anything. Much less if my father was previously known as a criminal himself. >>There was no Zulu imperialism. The Zulus simply absorbed other related groups and those Ohh, no, no, how could I say that? They “absorbed” other groups just like a spounge absorbs water, didn`t they? Now seriously, all empires are the same, and the Zulu one is no exception. It was created by Shaka Zulu, a man with an iron will and a thirst for power, just like Napoleon and Hitler. And his means were...mostly the same. He expanded through WAR. He accepted those who wanted to unite him and killed the rest, and he provoked large population movements of civilians terrified at his atrocities. My source? “The History of War” by John Keegan. >>When blacks decided to defend themselves they're called violent and anti-white. *Ahem!* Are you sort of justifying the Zebra killings, or any black-against-white racial crime? Do you call “self defence” shooting 80 unarmed strangers for their belonging to a certain race? If so tell me, that would mean END OF DISCUSSION on my side. I would never try to justify a lynching. I have read some depictions of them and they were beyond my words [please, stop on the former sentence for a while and you will notice that I don`t deny at all the woes commited by whites]. And yeah, whites looked at other side during the 20s and 30s, but eventually lynchings ended. They ended mainly because whites at last accepted that racism stinks! Now tell me, what was the reaction of black organizations when the ZK took place? I heard the Black Panthers simply complained at police harassment against black youngsters. They had no comment on the fact of the killings themselves. “Well, blacks feel opressed and this is their reaction against opression”. Now tell me about bullshit. The Zebra Killings, on the other side, are just one example of racial violence against whites, but the figures from the FBI are quite obvious: the ZK are not an isolated case at all. You can read, for example, on the Wichita massacre, at www.fredoneverything.net/Blowup.shtml and please notice that I am not necessarily agreeing with all that Fred Reed says here. But his account of the Wichita murder is interesting. I don`t hear much on black organizations against these sort of things. Apparently only racism against blacks is conceivable for them. Now please recall that you are stressing mostly things that happened long ago, while I am talking on things that are going right now. Political priorities, of course, must rest on present issues, rather than endlessly gulping and vomiting again the old stories.
|
|