Ice T

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...
Actually you're wrong about the French. Their relationship with the Native Americans was based almost soley on trade, mainly the fur trade, with little desire by the French to occupy those lands. For the most part the relations between the French and Native Americans were quite congenial with very little conflict and a significant amount of intermarrying/interbreeding with French Traders and the Native Americans. In fact most northern tribes sided with the French in the 7 Years War (aka French and Indian War). What ultimately undermined the French position in North America, particular in Canada, the Ohio Valley and the Great Lakes region was the superior quality and lower cost of British trade goods and the influence of that remarkable Irishman Sir William Johnson who persuaded the Iraquois League to sid with the British Crown, which ultimately lead to the demise of the Six Nations. With 20:20 hind sight it turned out to be a very poor decision by the Iroquis.
 
blackascoal said:
:0)

NEWSFLASH: Ice-T is a rapper. His entire career is based on the glorification of guns and violence .. and the denigration of women.

Sure, let's ask him what he thinks about the important issues of the day .. then pretend that what he thinks has meaning.
Click to expand...


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.
 
You do realize that Britain also had native allies in that war, don't you?

Anyway, it's cool that France tried to marry up the women rather than just kill the natives. It doesn't change the meat of my post much.
 
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...

I don't know anybody who said that. What most said was, "This is your audience, maybe you should pay attention to that."

Instead they chose to go after a different one. Which is cool too.
 
Rana said:
A legit claim, the one that they were the chosen people of God who gave them the land? The claim that God loved them above all other people on the Earth. Even if you believe in God that is such a stretch. Thinking people should realize the absurdity of that claim.
Click to expand...
Well I agree with you but that's not the point. There are obviously large numbers of people in the US who, based on religious beliefs, that those claims are legitimate. I personally only see them as legitimate via the rights of conquest. Which is nebulous moral reasoning to say the least.
 
Damocles said:
You do realize that there were Jews living in Israel at the time that nation was created, no? If they weren't there already you'd have a hard time explaining Menachim Begin for one... You know that guy who was a former terrorist that became the Prime Minister... He lived there and fought for Israel. Many do not understand that the only reason that the people who now call themselves Palestinians were there is because Jordan kicked their butts out.

Do you think the Jews don't deserve their own nation because some ancient empire called it Palestine after taking it over? It can't be because Jews were non-existent there before it became a State, because that would be revisionist history.
Click to expand...
I agree but lets be honest. Israels current claims are legitimized through the rights of conquest. They fought for it and won it and have been defending that right ever since. Anyways I was just using that as an example.
 
Damocles said:
Do you think the Jews don't deserve their own nation because some ancient empire called it Palestine after taking it over? It can't be because Jews were non-existent there before it became a State, because that would be revisionist history.
Click to expand...

I don't believe they deserve their own nation because God said so. ;)
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Well I agree with you but that's not the point. There are obviously large numbers of people in the US who, based on religious beliefs, that those claims are legitimate. I personally only see them as legitimate via the rights of conquest. Which is nebulous moral reasoning to say the least.
Click to expand...

Their conquest doesn't mean much when they were established there under false pretense in the first place.
 
Damocles said:
You do realize that Britain also had native allies in that war, don't you?

Anyway, it's cool that France tried to marry up the women rather than just kill the natives. It doesn't change the meat of my post much.
Click to expand...
Yes and some ally it was too, the mighty Iroquis league and it turned the table on the French during the Seven Years War. It also had calamitous results for the Iroquis league. They never recovered from the casualties they suffered. Their allegiance to the British backfired on them In fact it lead directly to General Washington waging genocide on the Iroquis leage when he assigned General Sullivan to utterly destroy the Iroquis league during the revolutionary war with specific orders to kill men, women, children and to destroy their homes, farms and crops. General Sullivan succeeded wildly beyond General Washingtons expectations and the Iroquis were annihilated with the survivors excaping to Canada. During Washingtons war of annihiliation on the Iroquis when the Iroquis pleaded with the British to come to their aid and resuce they were betrayed by the British and were subsequently destroyed never to be a force again.
 
Damocles said:
You do realize that Britain also had native allies in that war, don't you?

Anyway, it's cool that France tried to marry up the women rather than just kill the natives. It doesn't change the meat of my post much.
Click to expand...
No it doesn't. Most of the European colonist in the new world behaved with utter barbarism and inhumainty to the aboriginal people. I just wanted to point out that the French were by and large an exception.
 
Rana said:
Their conquest doesn't mean much when they were established there under false pretense in the first place.
Click to expand...
You're wrong there. You know why? Guess who lives there now and defends that land as their own? It may or may not be immoral as hell but rights of conquest mean a hell of a lot. how do you think we got our land here? Through trade negotiations and diplomacy? Not hardly. We did the same thing. We conquered the land and anihilated the original inhabitants. It may not have been morally right but guess what? We own it now.
 
Damocles said:
Nor did the UN when they thought up the compromise.
Click to expand...
That wasn't the point I was making. The point is, is that a large number of people in the USA view Israel's right to Palestine as being legitimized by their religious beliefs. Whether that view is correct or not is a different conversation all together.
 
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...

I can remember some very nasty things said about the Dixie Chicks, sure enough. I was glad to 'boycott' them because I didn't like them anyway. Per the discussion yesterday, I have softened a bit when it comes to boycotting.

Even though i am a conservative, I do like it when entertainers speak up and let someone know where they stand on some political issues. I often use it as a teaching situation with my son or some students. It seems today the intollerance of others [opinions] grown to almost a crescendo where if you don't agree with everything I stand for then you are my enemy. I don't, and have never believed that. Take this site, for instance. STY and I agree on many things about gun control. We don't share the belief that every policeman is a thug waiting for his chance to kill or incarcerate you. Tom P. and I agree a lot and are skeptical when it comes to AGW. We disagree on many other things. I agree with the ladies (used collectively because I don't think there are any conservative ladies left here) on many things as far as women's rights go but do not agree with unfettered abortion. Damo, WB, SF, Socrtease, ... I agree with these guys on a lot of issues, but I simply cannot be for the legalization of drugs, which I think most of them are for. My point is that I don't consider anyone here to be my enemy for simply having a difference of opinion (well, except Watermark...and..well, you know ;) hit the 'groan' button, WM) on many of the issues. I do fear (yep, I said it) what the result of such stark polarization of ideas and lack of compromise will eventually do to this country. As to the actor/rapper Ice T, I liked his character on Law and Order and I agree with what he said in short clip that was shown. I bet I don't agree with him on a lot of stuff though.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Actually you're wrong about the French. Their relationship with the Native Americans was based almost soley on trade, mainly the fur trade, with little desire by the French to occupy those lands. For the most part the relations between the French and Native Americans were quite congenial with very little conflict and a significant amount of intermarrying/interbreeding with French Traders and the Native Americans. In fact most northern tribes sided with the French in the 7 Years War (aka French and Indian War). What ultimately undermined the French position in North America, particular in Canada, the Ohio Valley and the Great Lakes region was the superior quality and lower cost of British trade goods and the influence of that remarkable Irishman Sir William Johnson who persuaded the Iraquois League to sid with the British Crown, which ultimately lead to the demise of the Six Nations. With 20:20 hind sight it turned out to be a very poor decision by the Iroquis.
Click to expand...

yet, the French had no problem selling us this land you believe they didn't claim back in 1803.......
 
Mott the Hoople said:
That wasn't the point I was making. The point is, is that a large number of people in the USA view Israel's right to Palestine as being legitimized by their religious beliefs. Whether that view is correct or not is a different conversation all together.
Click to expand...

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
 
PostmodernProphet said:
yet, the French had no problem selling us this land you believe they didn't claim back in 1803.......
Click to expand...
You need to study your colonial history. The French may have claimed the land for French rule but by and large they did not displace the aboriginal occupants from their land as did the other Colonial powers did.
 
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...
True though it is a completely moronic basis for establishing foreign policy.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
You need to study your colonial history. The French may have claimed the land for French rule but by and large they did not displace the aboriginal occupants from their land as did the other Colonial powers did.
Click to expand...

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....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top