Alex
|
~HERE FOLLOWS THE WORTHWHILE CONTENTS OF POST 300~
Yes. I like ham.
~FINIS~
Posted on 2004-05-04 07:30:28
|
ThinIce
|
no disregard meant for your mother's titties, I was just saying things (tm)
Posted on 2004-05-04 08:14:46
|
Alex
|
Hmm. Indeed. Thank you, ThinIce.
Posted on 2004-05-04 08:31:41
|
Interference22
|
Every nation's past is riddled with things they'd rather forget. Britain shot at the Americans, the Americans shot at the native Indians. The Irish got drunk. See?
Posted on 2004-05-04 09:33:50
|
Alex
|
Interference! I have been stirring up racial hatred in order to make this thread more interesting, and the Americans don't like it. Help!
Posted on 2004-05-04 17:49:38
|
Troupe
|
Alex: I love racial hatred!
Interference: Thank you for saying Native Indians. I hate it when people say "Native Americans", or some other accurate trash like that. The term I perfer to use is actually Injun, or Redskin.
Posted on 2004-05-04 22:59:01
|
ThinIce
|
damned injuns...
Posted on 2004-05-05 07:49:08
|
Troupe
|
TOM SAWYER!
Posted on 2004-05-05 14:33:04
|
mcgrue
|
Quote:Originally posted by Interference22
Every nation's past is riddled with things they'd rather forget. Britain shot at the Americans, the Americans shot at the native Indians. The Irish got drunk. See?
We want to forget that? Nay. The drinking brings on the forgetting, and that it why the irish continue to drink so much... we don't remember the severe damage we did to our livers last night!
Posted on 2004-05-05 17:12:48
|
rpgking
|
"Native Indians" is an extremely poor choice of words. Native Americans makes more sense because those people were the very first Americans who were invaded and wiped out by the white man. :P Thanks to that moron Columbus who thought he had reached India, people called the natives Indians and confuse the two, even today.
Posted on 2004-05-05 17:44:22
|
loretian
|
I like to call them American Indians. Native Indians doesn't really work because... that's basically the same thing as just calling them Indians, which implies India. They really need their own name, but since there is none, American Indians seems to be the most accurate.
Anyway, I don't feel like we need to forget that we shot the American Indians, because they attacked us first.
Oh sure, the Justice Leage of Americ...err, I mean the Anti-Defamation League won't let them tell you the full truth in schools, but most of the American Indians were savages and many were cannibals. I think most of the big tribes were more civilized (which is probably why they were so successful and big), but the majority of the American Indians were not kind, peace-loving, pot-smoking, earth-loving persons we've been led to believe.
And the only reason the British want to forget they shot Americans was because we kicked their ass in response, and Grue is absolutely correct about the Irsh.
</End Bullshit>
Posted on 2004-05-05 17:51:27
|
loretian
|
Quote:Originally posted by rpgking
"Native Indians" is an extremely poor choice of words. Native Americans makes more sense because those people were the very first Americans who were invaded and wiped out by the white man. :P
I see your point on the terminology, but I don't like calling them Native Americans because I'm sure there was somebody else here before them, and we'll never know.
Anyway, "invaded and wiped out" is a little extreme, even if it's a common thought. There was plenty of land available here in America, they could have shared. Obviously America did a lot of shitty things, but it's not like the Native Americans or American Indians or whatever were exactly doing much to help themselves. I would venture it's safe to say there's more American Indians alive today because of us "invading and wiping them out" than if we hadn't done so, because they would have killed and eaten each other otherwise.
Posted on 2004-05-05 17:54:50
|
Troupe
|
AHHHH I CAN'T BELIEVE IT! THE DAMN BRACKET DELETED MY ENTIRE RAVING RESPONSE! ALL THOSE WASTED MINUTES...
Oh well, maybe it was for the best...
Posted on 2004-05-05 18:26:52 (last edited on 2004-05-05 22:23:32)
|
loretian
|
Hey, I was extremely hungry and I felt like talking shit. I really do believe my premise (that there's a lot of bullshit out there about what really happened, and what occurred here in the past was not the "invasion and wiping out" of the American Indians), but it's also a really hard argument from my side since there's no denying all the shitty things we did to the American Indians.
But anyway, I just ate my lunch and I'm no longer hungry.
Posted on 2004-05-05 18:48:42
|
rpgking
|
Hmm. Well, I know what I said was extreme, but it was still partly true. Oh well, the past is the past. I seriously doubt they would've "eaten each other" though :P
Posted on 2004-05-05 20:03:23 (last edited on 2004-05-05 20:03:49)
|
Alex
|
I'm sure the "American Indian" (or whatever) thing wasn't entirely what we're all lead to believe. It wasn't exactly in the same league as what the Spanish did in Central and South America, which was pretty unpleasant by all accounts. Though it just goes to prove my point that whilst being very social animals, humans seem to be instinctively the opposite to those who are different.
And the only reason the British want to forget they shot Americans was because we kicked their ass in response
I know this is as good as saying "everyone hate me forever and, if you ever get the chance, brutally slaughter me", but I'm going to say it anyway, for the sake of historical political debate. :)
Let me assure you, the British will never forget the American Revolution because even though it is a very small pary of our history, and so is barely mentioned in history classes over here, it still seems to be, even after 200 years, still the most interesting thing that Americans have to talk about (at least judging from how much they do talk about it).
And I'd also like to say that, despite what you may teach your kids, the British aren't/weren't the evil race of tyrants who got their kicks from various "massacres" and taxing the hell out of the innocent colonist (taxes being, as they were, significantly lower in the American colonies than in Britain). But still... there's no pleasing some people.
Posted on 2004-05-05 20:27:22
|
loretian
|
Britian has one of the most epic and enthralling history of any nation. It's up there with the likes of Rome and Greece. I'm not surprised we're a tiny footnote in your history.
That said, America becoming independent from Britian was the defining moment in our history because it was our birth. That's why it's such a big deal to us. Especially given, that at the time, and for many other times, Britian was the greatest nation in the world.
If America continues to exist for awhile, and continues to set the standard for all great things in the world via our capitalistic ways, we may rival Britian in the history books 1,000 years from now.
Anyway, I know Britian wasn't all bad, but we still beat you at the one and only war we've had against each other. 
Posted on 2004-05-05 21:23:08 (last edited on 2004-05-05 21:25:41)
|
Troupe
|
Right on Lore! Thanks for redeeming yourself, I would have rewritten my entire page long response to your earlier comment if I hadn't have known you were just hungry. May I suggest ham?
Posted on 2004-05-05 22:32:57
|
Khross
|
It's disappointing how little we Americans understand about the other side's perspective in any war. No teacher I had ever argued Britain's case during the Revolutionary War; that the British Empire had accumulated a large amount of debt defending the colonies during the French-Indian War (the majority of fighting being on the North American continent), and naturally taxes had to be raised. England sought to distribute the burden more evenly (as taxes were much more severe on the mainland than in the colonies), and seeing as how so much had been expended to defend the American colonists from the French and domination under a true absolute monarch (as much as revolutionary propagandists tried to paint King George as an all-powerful tyrant), why shouldn't the colonists expect higher taxation? I think their position was perfectly reasonable-- but then again, I'm also supporter of succession.
Also, lore: You're forgetting the War of 1812. ;)
Posted on 2004-05-05 22:35:32
|
Alex
|
Hey, I was attempting to provoke a more vehement response. I admire your restraint!
You make all good points. Though the American Revolution was probably more than a footnote in our history... It's just that it's the only war Britain's ever lost, so we don't like to talk about it. ;)
one and only war we've had against each other
Heh, there was the war of 1812, but neither of us like to talk about that one, right? EDIT: Heh, Khross beat me to it. :p
ALSO: Surely no one ever viewed George III as an all-powerful tyrant? He held conversations with trees for heaven's sake... :D
Posted on 2004-05-05 22:42:01 (last edited on 2004-05-05 22:53:24)
|
