Page 2 of 3
Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 9:41 am
by josephbt
And if they are zombie-Nazis....
Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 10:07 pm
by Crissa
norms29 wrote:Although I did find one vague, uncited reference on wikipedia to the US putting Cheerokee into camps which could be classified as the Concetration variety in the 1830s, no details though
That's easy. They were entirely wiped from their homes and towns to give the land to whites.
Look up the 'Trail of Tears' and you'll find lots of details and support documentation. One fraction of my family survived that.
-Crissa
Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 10:38 pm
by name_here
It's still not camps of the type in question, in which people are forced to work far more than healthy and executed if they get too weak to continue.
I do know the details to an extent, the cheerokee were herded into camps with no shelter for a variable but short length of time then told that they had to go live to the west, they weren't getting supplies to any worthwhile extent, and it was time to start walking and not stop until they got there even though they'd have to keep walking into winter.
The only noteworthy difference is that survivors existed because they made it to the destination instead of their executioners getting defeated as a nation before succeeding.
Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 12:43 am
by norms29
Crissa wrote:norms29 wrote:Although I did find one vague, uncited reference on wikipedia to the US putting Cheerokee into camps which could be classified as the Concetration variety in the 1830s, no details though
That's easy. They were entirely wiped from their homes and towns to give the land to whites.
Look up the 'Trail of Tears' and you'll find lots of details and support documentation. One fraction of my family survived that.
-Crissa
well, the year is right. the but the "Indian Territories" don't qualifiy as a concentration camp.
one thing you'll notice in a any history detailing the Trail of Tears is that it focuses on the trail, the trip there. A concentration camp entails putting large numbers of people in a crowded camp and not letting them leave, usually "so they can be watched". the Indian Territories were none of those things.
I won't downplay the tragedy and atrocity of what happend, but I have to point out that it was an atrocity of the type being discussed.
On a related note, I apologies to everyone who came here to read about sucky monks for my role in extending the Concetration Camp tangent
Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 3:43 am
by ubernoob
When you have no food or clothing and are stuck in a limited area far more crowded than you're homeland what do you call that? Remember, with the death of the buffalo the native americans had basically no livelihood.
Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 5:53 am
by Crissa
They were in camps for a good time before being made to march.
I don't see forced marches and held in forts as much unlike concentration camps; it's just like comparing ghettoizing in various wars vs camps or reservations vs camps vs the occupied territories in Palestine.
It's all about segregating a population and taking their stuff from them. Of course a rural country will have a different solution than an urban one.
The Cherokee didn't hunt buffalo, and the buffalo weren't killed for another fifty years. They were farmers and woodmen. They had a written language, town halls, wooden structures, and deals with the federal government of the US.
-Crissa
Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 2:30 pm
by SunTzuWarmaster
BTW, I actually got the link I was looking for in the first few posts. I don't mind the thread being derailed (ever, including my own) if the information requested is present.
Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 4:05 pm
by TavishArtair
SunTzuWarmaster wrote:BTW, I actually got the link I was looking for in the first few posts. I don't mind the thread being derailed (ever, including my own) if the information requested is present.
Thread derailment is usually worse when a discussion thread that still has stuff to talk about jumps tracks before the issue actually gets anywhere. Godwinning a thread that has served its purpose is a bit different...
Crissa wrote:The Cherokee didn't hunt buffalo, and the buffalo weren't killed for another fifty years. They were farmers and woodmen. They had a written language, town halls, wooden structures, and deals with the federal government of the US.
For bonus points many Native tribes were forced to endure "schools" that varied in quality from actually teaching them anything to just giving them physical abuse. I'm pretty sure that when your job and home are taken away from you, you're forced to live in a dingy, lousy place, and your children are being sexually abused by a strange man who is untouchable because of his white skin, the difference between "territory" and "concentration camp".
Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 8:09 pm
by Lago PARANOIA
I don't mind the detour in this instance because the new topic is actually rather interesting and the original one (monks suck) is played out and to an extent irrelevant.
Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 4:13 am
by TavishArtair
Lago PARANOIA wrote:I don't mind the detour in this instance because the new topic is actually rather interesting and the original one (monks suck) is played out and to an extent irrelevant.
Well yes, the previous discussion was done with (in this case), I just find derailment, while a natural process, sometimes tiresome.
Oh, and as a followup to my earlier statement, it's possible that Native territories are
still inhabited by the aforementioned invincible white pederasts. Because, you know, we've had so much progress in the past 100 or so years. Sigh.
Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 5:21 am
by Bigode
In the comments to that, I think someone managed the spectacular feat of being a bit more negative on priesthood than it deserves ...
It is estimated by some that without the church, we may have been able to land on the moon in the late 13th century and that man would be in complete control of his destiny by now.
Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 5:27 am
by angelfromanotherpin
Bigode wrote:In the comments to that, I think someone managed the spectacular feat of being a bit more negative on priesthood than it deserves ...
It is estimated by some that without the church, we may have been able to land on the moon in the late 13th century and that man would be in complete control of his destiny by now.
The European Dark Ages were like 800 years long, and mostly due to the Catholic establishment. So I'm not convinced that's actually more negative than they deserve. 1969 - 800 = 1169, after all, so it actually seems like quite the conservative estimate.
Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 6:08 am
by Bigode
angelfromanotherpin wrote:The European Dark Ages were like 800 years long, and mostly due to the Catholic establishment. So I'm not convinced that's actually more negative than they deserve. 1969 - 800 = 1169, after all, so it actually seems like quite the conservative estimate.
The problem's that it assumes there was next to no technical advance in that period, which I doubt to be true in all aspects simply because wars didn't stop. That said ...
I wish I formulated it so clearly ... - someone wrote:If you are catholic, you are livestock, sheep of a malevolent shepherd and the shepherds he "hires" to be his minions through the priesthood of RCC Inc. The sheep/shepherd metaphor is interesting because it *seems* to convey something good and positive, but the true relationship of the shepherd to the sheep is - fleece 'em (deprive them of all their resources), screw 'em (use them for sex and other pleasures), kill 'em (slaughter them or sell them to be slaughtered, destroying every one), and eat 'em (consume their flesh, allow others to do so). Rams not wanted for reproduction have a band put around their bits until they turn black and fall off. Shepherds only "care* about their sheep long enough to keep them alive to take to market to sell for food. That catholics and other christians want to make themselves into livestock for their god is appalling and disgusting. That's even lower than being a slave.
What catholics and christians don't know also is that their central myth *begins* with the ****rape**** of a little girl who had been pimped by her parents to work as a temple "dove", a servant who was there to provide more services than just cleaning and dusting - her function was to be a temple prostitute as was the function of *all* children in religious temples in that part of the world at the time (not unusual at all). Even if sex wasn't her primary job, don't think that pedophiles of the day weren't in those temples taking full advantage of children that were given to those temples in order to enrich their parents financially, religiously, and socially. Thing is, the story has been prettied up with birdies, angels, and bright lights - and a rape victim who is said to have said, "What? God raped me? And now I'm going to bear God's child? How wonderful!" So, pedophilia is not only something promoted throughout the old testament, but it's something the bible god did to make a clone of himself on earth to cure a non-existent disease, and his minions thereafter have felt the holy obligation to emulate this god at every opportunity and rape every child available that has been pimped by their parents through baptism - a turning over of ownership to RCC Inc to do with their children as RCC Inc chooses. The conspiracy has existed since the time of Abraham, it has never stopped, and it never will.
All of this evil disguised as goodness and holiness must be stopped for the good of all children and vulnerable adults. It starts by as many people leaving as possible. It starts by not putting a penny in collection baskets any more.
It stops by prosecuting abusers and their protectors to the fullest extent of the law.
Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 6:47 am
by Neeeek
Bigode wrote:In the comments to that, I think someone managed the spectacular feat of being a bit more negative on priesthood than it deserves ...
It is estimated by some that without the church, we may have been able to land on the moon in the late 13th century and that man would be in complete control of his destiny by now.
Anyone who estimates that is a fucking idiot. Technology increases a lot faster now for several reasons: improved communications, refined methods, increased incentive through mass market availability. But the biggest one is there are a much larger amount of people to do the research in the first place. There are multiple individual nations with more people than the entire planet had in 1200.
Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 9:13 am
by Draco_Argentum
Neeeek wrote:Anyone who estimates that is a fucking idiot. Technology increases a lot faster now for several reasons: improved communications, refined methods, increased incentive through mass market availability. But the biggest one is there are a much larger amount of people to do the research in the first place. There are multiple individual nations with more people than the entire planet had in 1200.
And we has moar peeps cause we has moar foods. We has moar foods cause teknolagi advance.
Seriously, think about what you just said. We'd have the farming tech sooner without the dark age too. You objection makes less sense than kitty pidgin.
Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 1:14 pm
by Count Arioch the 28th
If the dark ages held us back so much, why didn't cultures who just didn't live within the Pope's sphere of influence just visit the moon in the 13th century? Or are you assuming that white people are just better at everything?
Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 1:30 pm
by angelfromanotherpin
Keep in mind that in Roman times there was a functional steam engine that wasn't developed further because the slave-based society had no use for a labor-saving machine.
Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 2:44 pm
by Count Arioch the 28th
Keep in mind that the Chinese had Gunpowder but didn't develop it extensively into weaponry.
Keep in mind that the middle eastern people had the beginnings of modern mathematics.
Seriously, this whole train of thought stinks of racism. Non-white cultures weren't influenced by the dark ages or the church, and they didn't explore the moon during the 13th century. I agree that the church doesn't have Humanity's best interests at hand, but it seems that most of you are so eager to blame things on the church that you'll literally make things up to hate about them. Really, the things they actually did is enough to hate them, no need to make up some sort of superior aryan paradise where whites rule the universe had the damned papist jews not stopped us.
Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 3:05 pm
by angelfromanotherpin
Count_Arioch_the_28th wrote:Keep in mind that the Chinese had Gunpowder but didn't develop it extensively into weaponry.
Um,
yes they did.
Keep in mind that the middle eastern people had the beginnings of modern mathematics.
'The Middle Eastern People?' That's about as racist a statement as I've ever seen. Are you talking about the golden age of Baghdad? Do you have any historical conext at all?
Seriously, this whole train of thought stinks of racism. Non-white cultures weren't influenced by the dark ages or the church, and they didn't explore the moon during the 13th century.
First, cultures don't have colors; and second, innovations from one culture spread to their neighbors, so grotesque oppression in Europe
does affect science in Baghdad. Directly so, when you consider the Crusades and their effects.
I agree that the church doesn't have Humanity's best interests at hand, but it seems that most of you are so eager to blame things on the church that you'll literally make things up to hate about them.
They actively destroyed knowledge and locked up what was left in fortresses while actively persecuting innovators and discovery. That this set back scientific and technological advancement is not exactly controversial. The only question is how much it set them back. Given that it was approximately 800 years from the burning of the library of Alexandria to the Renaissance, that seems like a neat ballpark figure.
Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 3:07 pm
by angelfromanotherpin
Doubled.
Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 3:18 pm
by Count Arioch the 28th
Yes, because anyone who speaks out about how the Pope stopped the Great White Galactic Empire is evil.
Do you have anything intelligent to say, or are you going to make up more insults?
Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 3:44 pm
by angelfromanotherpin
Wow, um, no, I'm just going to let you speak for yourself there.
Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 5:57 pm
by Neeeek
angelfromanotherpin wrote:
Keep in mind that the middle eastern people had the beginnings of modern mathematics.
'The Middle Eastern People?' That's about as racist a statement as I've ever seen. Are you talking about the golden age of Baghdad? Do you have any historical conext at all?
Are you just incredibly stupid? How is a reference to a region (and a fairly accurate one) even remotely racist? In what is now the Middle East the basis for modern mathematics were formed, including the numerals we use to this day.
Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 6:29 pm
by angelfromanotherpin
There is not one 'people' in the Middle East. There are several cultures and ethnicities, all of whom consider themselves quite distinct from one another. Referring to 'the middle eastern people' having 'the beginnings of modern mathematics,' with no further details is like talking about 'the asians' having 'the beginnings of modern currency.' Specific cultures did these things at a specific times.
If you want to talk about the mathematical revolution that took place under the Abbasid Caliphate, please have some idea what the hell you're talking about.
Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 6:56 pm
by Count Arioch the 28th
Let me get this straight:
Saying that white people would have an interstellar empire if the Pope wasn't holding us back when that wasn't a factor elsewhere and no one else developed space travel in the 13th century isn't racist.
Not using the exact word IS racist.
Excellent. I now longer have to argue anymore, Angel's arguments are getting stupider and stupider.