Ice T

PostmodernProphet said:
so in selling the land that the occupants were occupying they made no effort to represent they had the authority to do so?....if true, would you like to buy your house?....I can make you a good deal on it....
Click to expand...
Not to the original occupants they didn't but hey, the Americans and Brits had a better way of dealing with them. We killed them.
 
Damocles said:
Apparently just far enough back to say only the US did it. There was this nation that sent a bunch of people over here to steal land from Natives. It preceded the US. Can you tell me the name of that nation? I'll give you a hint... The king's name at that time was George.

The people here then fought with that nation to be able to steal their own land and make their own way.
Click to expand...

The irony though is that it was in large part the English, French and Spanish that stole the land (at least east of the Mississippi). We got rid of the English and French via wars and the Spanish were content on ass-raping South and Central America. While we certainly share responsibility in how we acted after our formation, we learned our behavior from the countries whence we came.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Yes indeed. The treaty of Easton in 1758 by Sir William Johnson comes to mind where by the British purposefully decieved the Indians out of the land between the Appalachians and the Ohio River basin. It also secured the trading rights in the Ohio valley region for the British in which in virtually every conflict between the British and the American settlers the British betrayed their Indian allies using their standard, divide and conquer, methods. The British were every bit as reprehnsible in their treatment of the American natives as the American colonist, settlers were. It's interesting to see that where ever in North America the British systems of administration were adopted the Native Americans were essentially wipped out but where the French systems of administration were adopted the Native American culture and presence exists to this very day.
Click to expand...

when did the Indians have a claim on the land? How could the British deceive those that were not here?
 
dixon76710 said:
I think even more Americans view Israel's right to Palestine as being legitimized by their belief that the bible is accurrate in its placement of Jews in Israel since the days of moses. The bible is a historical authority
Click to expand...


Holy fucking shit, fuck the Bible or at least your warped interpretation of it, where do you dinosaurs come from? I never thought I would say this but I wish Ariel Sharon would come out of his coma. At least he was willing to try to solve the problem by first returning Gaza and then resigning from Likud to form Kadima. Had he not suffered a massive stroke then the West Bank problem would also have been solved by now!!
 
Damocles said:
The thing of it is, the history of this poster's nation shows that it was doing the same thing contemporaneously with the burgeoning young nation of the US. They even fought wars (like the war of 1812), etc. for the "right" to do it here rather than let us do it ourselves. The assumption that the US should solely hold the guilt for the policy of the past is based on the ability to ignore the reality of the history of his own nation.

There is a reason that English is the official language of India and it wasn't because they were nice to them. There is a reason that Canada exists, and it wasn't without its own slaughter. France was spreading itself to this place as well, there is a reason that we were able to make the Louisiana purchase and it wasn't because France didn't participate in that same slaughter. There is a reason that they speak Spanish and Portuguese in South America, and it isn't because Spain and Portugal weren't participating in that same slaughter...

These people who try to judge were, at the same time the US was, spreading through the exact same actions.
Click to expand...

The history of the British Raj is far more complex than is given credit for, especially in the US. Otherwise how was it possible for a colonial staff of around 100,000 to control a country of over 400 million in the 19th century. Here is a breakdown of the good and the bad.

Good points

Stabilization of the Land Tax
Before British rule, all Indians paid a land tax to the local ruler. Sometimes, this would be sharply increased if a ruler had a need for extra money. The British collected the Land Tax themselves once they took over, but kept it at the same level throughout.

Replacement of despotic rule by the rule of law.
Indian rulers were despots who did as they pleased. The British had laws that were the same for all Indians and that were generally enforced.
The British built roads, railways, schools, universities and cities.

Aboiltion of Sutee and Thugee
Before British rule, Hindu widows were burned alive on their dead husbands' funeral pyres. The Thugee cult had murdered literally millions of Indians over the centuries, in worship of the goddess Kali. The British stamped out both.

Opportunity for the average Indian to better themselves
For example, they could join the army and later, the civil service.The British made no distinction through caste when recruiting Indians; caste determined an Indian's occupation within their own society and culture. Even today the caste system casts a long shadow over India.

Bad Points

Repatriation of Wealth
The wealth and natural resources of India was used to benefit Britain and its empire, not India

Political Freedom
There was no political freedom of self determination for the native population.The British made all the rules and laws and Indians were allowed little role in government. There were no elections and no Indian officials.

Cultural Reform
There was no attempt to reform Indian culture. Other than the abolition of sutee and thugee, there was no interference with religious beliefs and practices, no attempt to reform the caste system or the restructuring of Hindu society (most Indians were Hindus).

Religious Divide
The British made little attempt to reconcile Muslims and Hindus in India resulting in the partition of India in 1947.
 
Last edited:
Aoxomoxoa said:
Holy fucking shit, fuck the Bible or at least your warped interpretation of it, where do you dinosaurs come from? I never thought I would say this but I wish Ariel Sharon would come out of his coma. At least he was willing to try to solve the problem by first returning Gaza and then resigning from Likud to form Kadima. Had he not suffered a massive stroke then the West Bank problem would also have been solved by now!!
Click to expand...

doubtful...Chamberlain failed and so do others who tend to think that appeasement is a valid tool.

If it were so easy, then the terrorost PLO leader Arafat would have accepted the offer at Camp David.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Remember when hate filled conservatives got themselves all worked up into a tizzy when the Dixie Chicks DARED to offer their political opinion?

"They are ENTERTAINERS...just shut up and sing" they spat out in response when the Chicks dared to question Dubya's wisdom...

Yet here the very same people are, endorsing what another ENTERTAINER has to say because he agrees with them.
Click to expand...

Imagine that.

I wonder if they agree with him when he says he wants to use his guns to kill the police.

Same Ice-T.
 
blackascoal said:
Imagine that.

I wonder if they agree with him when he says he wants to use his guns to kill the police.

Same Ice-T.
Click to expand...

Well, to point, the Dixie chicks angered people because they were proffering that opinion overseas in criticism of their own country in a time of war...Are we at war with our own citizens?
 
j-mac said:
Well, to point, the Dixie chicks angered people because they were proffering that opinion overseas in criticism of their own country in a time of war...Are we at war with our own citizens?
Click to expand...

The Dixie Chicks aren't politicians. Romney is. Do you know what the "water's edge" is? Here's what Biden had to say about Romney's comment.

"Despite his promises that politics stops at the water's edge, Gov. Romney's wheels hadn't even touched down in London before his advisers were reportedly playing politics with international diplomacy,"
Click to expand...

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-rachel-maddow-show/47883318#47883318
 
j-mac said:
doubtful...Chamberlain failed and so do others who tend to think that appeasement is a valid tool.

If it were so easy, then the terrorost PLO leader Arafat would have accepted the offer at Camp David.
Click to expand...

Your knowledge of recent history is seriously lacking, Arafat had been dead at least two years when Sharon had his stroke. He formed Kadima specifically because Likud refused to go along with his plans. Netanyahu became leader of Likud and has blighted any progress since by allowing new settlements in the West Bank. Sharon had the clout to do it because he was respected as the greatest military leader Israel ever had despite his allowing the Phalangists to decimate the Shatila and Sabra refugee camps in 1982.
 
Last edited:
Aoxomoxoa said:
The history of the British Raj is far more complex than is given credit for, especially in the US. Otherwise how was it possible for a colonial staff of around 100,000 to control a country of over 400 million in the 19th century. Here is a breakdown of the good and the bad.

Good points

Stabilization of the Land Tax
Before British rule, all Indians paid a land tax to the local ruler. Sometimes, this would be sharply increased if a ruler had a need for extra money. The British collected the Land Tax themselves once they took over, but kept it at the same level throughout.

Replacement of despotic rule by the rule of law.
Indian rulers were despots who did as they pleased. The British had laws that were the same for all Indians and that were generally enforced.
The British built roads, railways, schools, universities and cities.

Aboiltion of Sutee and Thugee
Before British rule, Hindu widows were burned alive on their dead husbands' funeral pyres. The Thugee cult had murdered literally millions of Indians over the centuries, in worship of the goddess Kali. The British stamped out both.

Opportunity for the average Indian to better themselves
For example, they could join the army and later, the civil service.The British made no distinction through caste when recruiting Indians; caste determined an Indian's occupation within their own society and culture. Even today the caste system casts a long shadow over India.

Bad Points

Repatriation of Wealth
The wealth and natural resources of India was used to benefit Britain and its empire, not India

Political Freedom
There was no political freedom of self determination for the native population.The British made all the rules and laws and Indians were allowed little role in government. There were no elections and no Indian officials.

Cultural Reform
There was no attempt to reform Indian culture. Other than the abolition of sutee and thugee, there was no interference with religious beliefs and practices, no attempt to reform the caste system or the restructuring of Hindu society (most Indians were Hindus).

Religious Divide
The British made little attempt to reconcile Muslims and Hindus in India resulting in the partition of India in 1947.
Click to expand...
I have a few questions. Are Thugee's related the Threedee's and if so how many widows do we need to burn to stamp them/him out?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top