Yes, Native Americans Were the Victims of Genocide

Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz grew up in rural Oklahoma, the daughter of a tenant farmer and part-Indian mother. She has been active in the international Indigenous movement for more than four decades and is known for her lifelong commitment to national and international social justice issues. After receiving her PhD in history at the University of California at Los Angeles, she taught in the newly established Native American Studies Program at California State University, Hayward, and helped found the Departments of Ethnic Studies and Women’s Studies. Her latest book is An Indigenous Peoples' History of the United States.

Mass Grave at Wounded Knee


This paper, written under the title, “U.S. Settler-Colonialism and Genocide Policies,” was delivered at the Organization of American Historians 2015 Annual Meeting in St. Louis, MO on April 18, 2015.

US policies and actions related to Indigenous peoples, though often termed “racist” or “discriminatory,” are rarely depicted as what they are: classic cases of imperialism and a particular form of colonialism—settler colonialism. As anthropologist Patrick Wolfe writes, “The question of genocide is never far from discussions of settler colonialism. Land is life—or, at least, land is necessary for life.”i The history of the United States is a history of settler colonialism.

The extension of the United States from sea to shining sea was the intention and design of the country’s founders. “Free” land was the magnet that attracted European settlers. After the war for independence but preceding the writing of the US Constitution, the Continental Congress produced the Northwest Ordinance. This was the first law of the incipient republic, revealing the motive for those desiring independence. It was the blueprint for gobbling up the British-protected Indian Territory (“Ohio Country”) on the other side of the Appalachians and Alleghenies. Britain had made settlement there illegal with the Proclamation of 1763.

In 1801, President Jefferson aptly described the new settler state’s intentions for horizontal and vertical continental expansion, stating: “However our present interests may restrain us within our own limits, it is impossible not to look forward to distant times, when our rapid multiplication will expand itself beyond those limits and cover the whole northern, if not the southern continent, with a people speaking the same language, governed in similar form by similar laws.” This vision of manifest destiny found form a few years later in the Monroe Doctrine, signaling the intention of annexing or dominating former Spanish colonial territories in the Americas and the Pacific, which would be put into practice during the rest of the century.

The form of colonialism that the Indigenous peoples of North America have experienced was modern from the beginning: the expansion of European corporations, backed by government armies, into foreign areas, with subsequent expropriation of lands and resources. Settler colonialism requires a genocidal policy. Native nations and communities, while struggling to maintain fundamental values and collectivity, have from the beginning resisted modern colonialism using both defensive and offensive techniques, including the modern forms of armed resistance of national liberation movements and what now is called terrorism. In every instance they have fought and continue to fight for survival as peoples. The objective of US authorities was to terminate their existence as peoples—not as random individuals. This is the very definition of modern genocide.

The objective of US colonialist authorities was to terminate their existence as peoples—not as random individuals. This is the very definition of modern genocide as contrasted with premodern instances of extreme violence that did not have the goal of extinction. The United States as a socioeconomic and political entity is a result of this centuries-long and ongoing colonial process. Modern Indigenous nations and communities are societies formed by their resistance to colonialism, through which they have carried their practices and histories. It is breathtaking, but no miracle, that they have survived as peoples.

Settler-colonialism requires violence or the threat of violence to attain its goals, which then forms the foundation of the United States’ system. People do not hand over their land, resources, children, and futures without a fight, and that fight is met with violence. In employing the force necessary to accomplish its expansionist goals, a colonizing regime institutionalizes violence. The notion that settler-indigenous conflict is an inevitable product of cultural differences and misunderstandings, or that violence was committed equally by the colonized and the colonizer, blurs the nature of the historical processes. Euro-American colonialism, an aspect of the capitalist economic globalization, had from its beginnings a genocidal tendency.

So, what constitutes genocide? My colleague on the panel, Gary Clayton Anderson, in his recent book, “Ethnic Cleansing and the Indian,” argues: “Genocide will never become a widely accepted characterization for what happened in North America, because large numbers of Indians survived and because policies of mass murder on a scale similar to events in central Europe, Cambodia, or Rwanda were never implemented.”ii There are fatal errors in this assessment.

The term “genocide” was coined following the Shoah, or Holocaust, and its prohibition was enshrined in the United Nations convention presented in 1948 and adopted in 1951: the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The convention is not retroactive but is applicable to US-Indigenous relations since 1988, when the US Senate ratified it. The genocide convention is an essential tool for historical analysis of the effects of colonialism in any era, and particularly in US history.

In the convention, any one of five acts is considered genocide if “committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”:

(a) killing members of the group;

(b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.iii


The followings acts are punishable:

(a) Genocide;

(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;

(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;

(d) Attempt to commit genocide;

(e) Complicity in genocide.


The term “genocide” is often incorrectly used, such as in Dr. Anderson’s assessment, to describe extreme examples of mass murder, the death of vast numbers of people, as, for instance in Cambodia. What took place in Cambodia was horrific, but it does not fall under the terms of the Genocide Convention, as the Convention specifically refers to a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, with individuals within that group targeted by a government or its agents because they are members of the group or by attacking the underpinnings of the group’s existence as a group being met with the intent to destroy that group in whole or in part. The Cambodian government committed crimes against humanity, but not genocide. Genocide is not an act simply worse than anything else, rather a specific kind of act. The term, “ethnic cleansing,” is a descriptive term created by humanitarian interventionists to describe what was said to be happening in the 1990s wars among the republics of Yugoslavia. It is a descriptive term, not a term of international humanitarian law.

Although clearly the Holocaust was the most extreme of all genocides, the bar set by the Nazis is not the bar required to be considered genocide. The title of the Genocide convention is the “Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide,” so the law is about preventing genocide by identifying the elements of government policy, rather than only punishment after the fact. Most importantly, genocide does not have to be complete to be considered genocide.

US history, as well as inherited Indigenous trauma, cannot be understood without dealing with the genocide that the United States committed against Indigenous peoples. From the colonial period through the founding of the United States and continuing in the twentieth century, this has entailed torture, terror, sexual abuse, massacres, systematic military occupations, removals of Indigenous peoples from their ancestral territories, forced removal of Native American children to military-like boarding schools, allotment, and a policy of termination.

Within the logic of settler-colonialism, genocide was the inherent overall policy of the United States from its founding, but there are also specific documented policies of genocide on the part of US administrations that can be identified in at least four distinct periods: the Jacksonian era of forced removal; the California gold rush in Northern California; during the Civil War and in the post Civil War era of the so-called Indian Wars in the Southwest and the Great Plains; and the 1950s termination period; additionally, there is the overlapping period of compulsory boarding schools, 1870s to 1960s. The Carlisle boarding school, founded by US Army officer Richard Henry Pratt in 1879, became a model for others established by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Pratt said in a speech in 1892, "A great general has said that the only good Indian is a dead one. In a sense, I agree with the sentiment, but only in this: that all the Indian there is in the race should be dead. Kill the Indian in him and save the man."

Cases of genocide carried out as policy may be found in historical documents as well as in the oral histories of Indigenous communities. An example from 1873 is typical, with General William T. Sherman writing, “We must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to their extermination, men, women and children . . . during an assault, the soldiers can not pause to distinguish between male and female, or even discriminate as to age.”iv

The so-called “Indian Wars” technically ended around 1880, although the Wounded Knee massacre occurred a decade later. Clearly an act with genocidal intent, it is still officially considered a “battle” in the annals of US military genealogy. Congressional Medals of Honor were bestowed on twenty of the soldiers involved. A monument was built at Fort Riley, Kansas, to honor the soldiers killed by friendly fire. A battle streamer was created to honor the event and added to other streamers that are displayed at the Pentagon, West Point, and army bases throughout the world. L. Frank Baum, a Dakota Territory settler later famous for writing The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, edited the Aberdeen Saturday Pioneer at the time. Five days after the sickening event at Wounded Knee, on January 3, 1891, he wrote, “The Pioneer has before declared that our only safety depends upon the total extermination of the Indians. Having wronged them for centuries we had better, in order to protect our civilization, follow it up by one or more wrong and wipe these untamed and untamable creatures from the face of the earth.”

Whether 1880 or 1890, most of the collective land base that Native Nations secured through hard fought for treaties made with the United States was lost after that date.

After the end of the Indian Wars, came allotment, another policy of genocide of Native nations as nations, as peoples, the dissolution of the group. Taking the Sioux Nation as an example, even before the Dawes Allotment Act of 1884 was implemented, and with the Black Hills already illegally confiscated by the federal government, a government commission arrived in Sioux territory from Washington, DC, in 1888 with a proposal to reduce the Sioux Nation to six small reservations, a scheme that would leave nine million acres open for Euro-American settlement. The commission found it impossible to obtain signatures of the required three-fourths of the nation as required under the 1868 treaty, and so returned to Washington with a recommendation that the government ignore the treaty and take the land without Sioux consent. The only means to accomplish that goal was legislation, Congress having relieved the government of the obligation to negotiate a treaty. Congress commissioned General George Crook to head a delegation to try again, this time with an offer of $1.50 per acre. In a series of manipulations and dealings with leaders whose people were now starving, the commission garnered the needed signatures. The great Sioux Nation was broken into small islands soon surrounded on all sides by European immigrants, with much of the reservation land a checkerboard with settlers on allotments or leased land.v Creating these isolated reservations broke the historical relationships between clans and communities of the Sioux Nation and opened areas where Europeans settled. It also allowed the Bureau of Indian Affairs to exercise tighter control, buttressed by the bureau’s boarding school system. The Sun Dance, the annual ceremony that had brought Sioux together and reinforced national unity, was outlawed, along with other religious ceremonies. Despite the Sioux people’s weak position under late-nineteenth-century colonial domination, they managed to begin building a modest cattle-ranching business to replace their former bison-hunting economy. In 1903, the US Supreme Court ruled, in Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, that a March 3, 1871, appropriations rider was constitutional and that Congress had “plenary” power to manage Indian property. The Office of Indian Affairs could thus dispose of Indian lands and resources regardless of the terms of previous treaty provisions. Legislation followed that opened the reservations to settlement through leasing and even sale of allotments taken out of trust. Nearly all prime grazing lands came to be occupied by non-Indian ranchers by the 1920s.

By the time of the New Deal–Collier era and nullification of Indian land allotment under the Indian Reorganization Act, non-Indians outnumbered Indians on the Sioux reservations three to one. However, “tribal governments” imposed in the wake of the Indian Reorganization Act proved particularly harmful and divisive for the Sioux.”vi Concerning this measure, the late Mathew King, elder traditional historian of the Oglala Sioux (Pine Ridge), observed: “The Bureau of Indian Affairs drew up the constitution and by-laws of this organization with the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934. This was the introduction of home rule. . . . The traditional people still hang on to their Treaty, for we are a sovereign nation. We have our own government.”vii “Home rule,” or neocolonialism, proved a short-lived policy, however, for in the early 1950s the United States developed its termination policy, with legislation ordering gradual eradication of every reservation and even the tribal governments.viii At the time of termination and relocation, per capita annual income on the Sioux reservations stood at $355, while that in nearby South Dakota towns was $2,500. Despite these circumstances, in pursuing its termination policy, the Bureau of Indian Affairs advocated the reduction of services and introduced its program to relocate Indians to urban industrial centers, with a high percentage of Sioux moving to San Francisco and Denver in search of jobs.ix

The situations of other Indigenous Nations were similar.

Pawnee Attorney Walter R. Echo-Hawk writes:

In 1881, Indian landholdings in the United States had plummeted to 156 million acres. By 1934, only about 50 million acres remained (an area the size of Idaho and Washington) as a result of the General Allotment Act of 1887. During World War II, the government took 500,000 more acres for military use. Over one hundred tribes, bands, and Rancherias relinquished their lands under various acts of Congress during the termination era of the 1950s. By 1955, the indigenous land base had shrunk to just 2.3 percent of its [size at the end of the Indian wars].x


According to the current consensus among historians, the wholesale transfer of land from Indigenous to Euro-American hands that occurred in the Americas after 1492 is due less to British and US American invasion, warfare, refugee conditions, and genocidal policies in North America than to the bacteria that the invaders unwittingly brought with them. Historian Colin Calloway is among the proponents of this theory writing, “Epidemic diseases would have caused massive depopulation in the Americas whether brought by European invaders or brought home by Native American traders.”xi Such an absolutist assertion renders any other fate for the Indigenous peoples improbable. This is what anthropologist Michael Wilcox has dubbed “the terminal narrative.” Professor Calloway is a careful and widely respected historian of Indigenous North America, but his conclusion articulates a default assumption. The thinking behind the assumption is both ahistorical and illogical in that Europe itself lost a third to one-half of its population to infectious disease during medieval pandemics. The principle reason the consensus view is wrong and ahistorical is that it erases the effects of settler colonialism with its antecedents in the Spanish “Reconquest” and the English conquest of Scotland, Ireland, and Wales. By the time Spain, Portugal, and Britain arrived to colonize the Americas, their methods of eradicating peoples or forcing them into dependency and servitude were ingrained, streamlined, and effective.

Whatever disagreement may exist about the size of precolonial Indigenous populations, no one doubts that a rapid demographic decline occurred in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, its timing from region to region depending on when conquest and colonization began. Nearly all the population areas of the Americas were reduced by 90 percent following the onset of colonizing projects, decreasing the targeted Indigenous populations of the Americas from a one hundred million to ten million. Commonly referred to as the most extreme demographic disaster—framed as natural—in human history, it was rarely called genocide until the rise of Indigenous movements in the mid-twentieth century forged new questions.

US scholar Benjamin Keen acknowledges that historians “accept uncritically a fatalistic ‘epidemic plus lack of acquired immunity’ explanation for the shrinkage of Indian populations, without sufficient attention to the socioeconomic factors . . . which predisposed the natives to succumb to even slight infections.”xii Other scholars agree. Geographer William M. Denevan, while not ignoring the existence of widespread epidemic diseases, has emphasized the role of warfare, which reinforced the lethal impact of disease. There were military engagements directly between European and Indigenous nations, but many more saw European powers pitting one Indigenous nation against another or factions within nations, with European allies aiding one or both sides, as was the case in the colonization of the peoples of Ireland, Africa and Asia, and was also a factor in the Holocaust. Other killers cited by Denevan are overwork in mines, frequent outright butchery, malnutrition and starvation resulting from the breakdown of Indigenous trade networks, subsistence food production and loss of land, loss of will to live or reproduce (and thus suicide, abortion, and infanticide), and deportation and enslavement.xiii Anthropologist Henry Dobyns has pointed to the interruption of Indigenous peoples’ trade networks. When colonizing powers seized Indigenous trade routes, the ensuing acute shortages, including food products, weakened populations and forced them into dependency on the colonizers, with European manufactured goods replacing Indigenous ones. Dobyns has estimated that all Indigenous groups suffered serious food shortages one year in four. In these circumstances, the introduction and promotion of alcohol proved addictive and deadly, adding to the breakdown of social order and responsibility.xiv These realities render the myth of “lack of immunity,” including to alcohol, pernicious.

Historian Woodrow Wilson Borah focused on the broader arena of European colonization, which also brought severely reduced populations in the Pacific Islands, Australia, Western Central America, and West Africa.xv Sherburne Cook—associated with Borah in the revisionist Berkeley School, as it was called—studied the attempted destruction of the California Indians. Cook estimated 2,245 deaths among peoples in Northern California—the Wintu, Maidu, Miwak, Omo, Wappo, and Yokuts nations—in late eighteenth-century armed conflicts with the Spanish while some 5,000 died from disease and another 4,000 were relocated to missions. Among the same people in the second half of the nineteenth century, US armed forces killed 4,000, and disease killed another 6,000. Between 1852 and 1867, US citizens kidnapped 4,000 Indian children from these groups in California. Disruption of Indigenous social structures under these conditions and dire economic necessity forced many of the women into prostitution in goldfield camps, further wrecking what vestiges of family life remained in these matriarchal societies.

Historians and others who deny genocide emphasize population attrition by disease, weakening Indigenous peoples ability to resist. In doing so they refuse to accept that the colonization of America was genocidal by plan, not simply the tragic fate of populations lacking immunity to disease. If disease could have done the job, it is not clear why the United States found it necessary to carry out unrelenting wars against Indigenous communities in order to gain every inch of land they took from them—along with the prior period of British colonization, nearly three hundred years of eliminationist warfare.

In the case of the Jewish Holocaust, no one denies that more Jews died of starvation, overwork, and disease under Nazi incarceration than died in gas ovens or murdered by other means, yet the acts of creating and maintaining the conditions that led to those deaths clearly constitute genocide. And no one recites the terminal narrative associated with Native Americans, or Armenians, or Bosnian.

Not all of the acts iterated in the genocide convention are required to exist to constitute genocide; any one of them suffices. In cases of United States genocidal policies and actions, each of the five requirements can be seen.

First, Killing members of the group: The genocide convention does not specify that large numbers of people must be killed in order to constitute genocide, rather that members of the group are killed because they are members of the group. Assessing a situation in terms of preventing genocide, this kind of killing is a marker for intervention.

Second, Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group: such as starvation, the control of food supply and withholding food as punishment or as reward for compliance, for instance, in signing confiscatory treaties. As military historian John Grenier points out in his First Way of War:

For the first 200 years of our military heritage, then, Americans depended on arts of war that contemporary professional soldiers supposedly abhorred: razing and destroying enemy villages and fields; killing enemy women and children; raiding settlements for captives; intimidating and brutalizing enemy noncombatants; and assassinating enemy leaders. . . . In the frontier wars between 1607 and 1814, Americans forged two elements—unlimited war and irregular war—into their first way of war.xvii


Grenier argues that not only did this way of war continue throughout the 19th century in wars against the Indigenous nations, but continued in the 20th century and currently in counterinsurgent wars against peoples in Latin America, the Caribbean and Pacific, Southeast Asia, Middle and Western Asia and Africa.

Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part: Forced removal of all the Indigenous nations east of the Mississippi to Indian Territory during the Jackson administration was a calculated policy intent on destroying those peoples ties to their original lands, as well as declaring Native people who did not remove to no longer be Muskogee, Sauk, Kickapoo, Choctaw, destroying the existence of up to half of each nation removed. Mandatory boarding schools, Allotment and Termination—all official government policies--also fall under this category of the crime of genocide. The forced removal and four year incarceration of the Navajo people resulted in the death of half their population.

Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group: Famously, during the Termination Era, the US government administrated Indian Health Service made the top medical priority the sterilization of Indigenous women. In 1974, an independent study by one the few Native American physicians, Dr. Connie Pinkerton-Uri, Choctaw/Cherokee, found that one in four Native women had been sterilized without her consent. Pnkerton-Uri’s research indicated that the Indian Health Service had “singled out full-blooded Indian women for sterilization procedures.” At first denied by the Indian Health Service, two years later, a study by the U.S. General Accounting Office found that 4 of the 12 Indian Health Service regions sterilized 3,406 Native women without their permission between 1973 and 1976. The GAO found that 36 women under age 21 had been forcibly sterilized during this period despite a court-ordered moratorium on sterilizations of women younger than 21.

Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group: Various governmental entities, mostly municipalities, counties, and states, routinely removed Native children from their families and put them up for adoption. In the Native resistance movements of the 1960s and 1970s, the demand to put a stop to the practice was codified in the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978. However, the burden of enforcing the legislation lay with Tribal Government, but the legislation provided no financial resources for Native governments to establish infrastructure to retrieve children from the adoption industry, in which Indian babies were high in demand. Despite these barriers to enforcement, the worst abuses had been curbed over the following three decades. But, on June 25, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling drafted by Justice Samuel Alito, used provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) to say that a child, widely known as Baby Veronica, did not have to live with her biological Cherokee father. The high court’s decision paved the way for Matt and Melanie Capobianco, the adoptive parents, to ask the South Carolina Courts to have the child returned to them. The court gutted the purpose and intent of the Indian Child Welfare Act, missing the concept behind the ICWA, the protection of cultural resource and treasure that are Native children; it’s not about protecting so-called traditional or nuclear families. It’s about recognizing the prevalence of extended families and culture.xviii

So, why does the Genocide Convention matter? Native nations are still here and still vulnerable to genocidal policy. This isn’t just history that predates the 1948 Genocide Convention. But, the history is important and needs to be widely aired, included in public school texts and public service announcements. The Doctrine of Discovery is still law of the land. From the mid-fifteenth century to the mid-twentieth century, most of the non-European world was colonized under the Doctrine of Discovery, one of the first principles of international law Christian European monarchies promulgated to legitimize investigating, mapping, and claiming lands belonging to peoples outside Europe. It originated in a papal bull issued in 1455 that permitted the Portuguese monarchy to seize West Africa. Following Columbus’s infamous exploratory voyage in 1492, sponsored by the king and queen of the infant Spanish state, another papal bull extended similar permission to Spain. Disputes between the Portuguese and Spanish monarchies led to the papal-initiated Treaty of Tordesillas (1494), which, besides dividing the globe equally between the two Iberian empires, clarified that only non-Christian lands fell under the discovery doctrine.xix This doctrine on which all European states relied thus originated with the arbitrary and unilateral establishment of the Iberian monarchies’ exclusive rights under Christian canon law to colonize foreign peoples, and this right was later seized by other European monarchical colonizing projects. The French Republic used this legalistic instrument for its nineteenth- and twentieth-century settler colonialist projects, as did the newly independent United States when it continued the colonization of North America begun by the British.

In 1792, not long after the US founding, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson claimed that the Doctrine of Discovery developed by European states was international law applicable to the new US government as well. In 1823 the US Supreme Court issued its decision in Johnson v. McIntosh. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Marshall held that the Doctrine of Discovery had been an established principle of European law and of English law in effect in Britain’s North American colonies and was also the law of the United States. The Court defined the exclusive property rights that a European country acquired by dint of discovery: “Discovery gave title to the government, by whose subjects, or by whose authority, it was made, against all other European governments, which title might be consummated by possession.” Therefore, European and Euro-American “discoverers” had gained real-property rights in the lands of Indigenous peoples by merely planting a flag. Indigenous rights were, in the Court’s words, “in no instance, entirely disregarded; but were necessarily, to a considerable extent, impaired.” The court further held that Indigenous “rights to complete sovereignty, as independent nations, were necessarily diminished.” Indigenous people could continue to live on the land, but title resided with the discovering power, the United States. The decision concluded that Native nations were “domestic, dependent nations.”

The Doctrine of Discovery is so taken for granted that it is rarely mentioned in historical or legal texts published in the Americas. The UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Peoples, which meets annually for two weeks, devoted its entire 2012 session to the doctrine.xx But few US citizens are aware of the precarity of the situation of Indigenous Peoples in the United States.

_______________


http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/162804


- See more at: http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/162804#sthash.uRC5InPe.dpuf

YEP, Didge...

Records show that there were organised genocidal and ethnic cleansing efforts put in place by early colonial powers in both North America (Spanish, British, Dutch and French...) and Australia (mostly British, but some Dutch in Western Australia.); and the mercantile and grazing companies set up to to exploit these countries' natural resources; and carried over into the new governments after the US's war of Independence, and the later individual federations of colonies of Canada and Australia to produce two more new countries..

EVEN TODAY the FBI is deeply involved in the continuing fight of government deparments and private corporations against First Nation tribes;  while at the same time the CIA's own records show that as recently as the 1970s, they were helping foreign governments in Canada, Australia and South Africa not only in fights against opposition parties -- but also in anti-"land rights" issues !    

AND, we've also all seen the old Western movies from the 1940s, '50s and '60s with Hollywood's ooious efforts at whitewashing those early US governments actions, portraying the brave and noble Euro' settlers and the backing of supporting soldiers in their righteous conquest of those uncivilised, devil worshipping, baby eating "redskin savages";  have we not ?            


JUST DON'T TELL  Tommy  Monk, and co. ...

On a couple of other threads that well known revisionist Tommy is falsely but steadfastly declaring that  --

..hardly anybody was living in Australia or North America 150 years ago !   (Let's ignore that European (Spanish) settlement began some 300 years ago..).
...there were few indigenous folks here when the Brit's invaded (never mind that there already were millions of inhabitants across the North American continent, well before Columbus reached the Carribean..).
...there was no recorded history before the English (and French in Canada..) arrived on the scene !

THEN THAT well known scientific genius and self-declared spiritual guru and poet, the ever-popular stardesk popped up on one of those threads to back Tommy's openly racist blatherings, by attempting to remind all of us lowly unwashed and ignorant peasants over here in these "backward" former colonies, that if it weren't for those European invaders, then these countries would apparently still be inhabited by uncouth savages crawling around on the ground, eating our enemies'  brains for desert, and wondering what gods lived beyond those distant hills..    

 

Um, let me think of my response to this. Okay, I've got it.

No shit?

Well here's my 2¢ worth, since our self-anointed historian can't be troubled to dribble his opinion

DUHHHH~~~

Why do the colonialist on here get so antsy, when ever an article is posted about a spcific colonial nation like the US?

Its just an article of interest, if peopl wish to discuss

Wolf at peast gives an opinion.

Ben feels he has to say something as its about the US, even though he may hav just not bothered and lastly there is the sockpuppet.

4EVER2 wrote:Well here's my 2¢ worth, since our self-anointed historian can't be troubled to dribble his opinion

DUHHHH~~~

Of everyone, being part American Indian, you certainly have the right to say that lol.

Oh, hell - yes; I'm quite able to carry on a conversation with a unfortunate deaf person...but the reason that rational thinking humans find their way to such community forum boards is for conversation and the exchange of ideology and just perhaps they might learn something interesting and shockingly NEW too!

But it takes very little effort to just keep plastering the sight with a plethora of lengthy 'cut & paste' that the member assumes interesting, but can't be bothered to formulate his own POV about the subject matter  --- waste of bandwidth and BORING too! 

4EVER2 wrote:Oh, hell - yes; I'm quite able to carry on a conversation with a unfortunate deaf person...but the reason that rational thinking humans find their way to such community forum boards is for conversation and the exchange of ideology and just perhaps they might learn something interesting and shockingly NEW too!

But it takes very little effort to just keep plastering the sight with a plethora of lengthy 'cut & paste' that the member assumes interesting, but can't be bothered to formulate his own POV about the subject matter  --- waste of bandwidth and BORING too! 

Which translates to the following


That you are so constantly wound up and emotional. That where many people post threads and do not commnt. I have you slithering like the pathetic worm you are on the floor. So mush so you keep pathetical rearing your head up and hissing at me over this.
Seriously, its so evident, that if you were truly bothered about comments not made from the opening post. We would see that reflecring on every single thread started by anyoine who did this.
So that claim is clearly born from the realms of "you must think the forum posters on here were born yesteray"
In other words, you are simple looking for any moment to deliberately attemped to start a conflict on a thread, where nothing was even stated to you.


Now I think that is hilarious

Please continue to hiss at me, using what can onlt be described as the worst total failure, at the application of stealth

Didgey-Dooer stated >
Which translates to the following
That you are so constantly wound up and emotional. That where many people post threads and do not commnt. I have you slithering like the pathetic worm you are on the floor. So mush so you keep pathetical rearing your head up and hissing at me over this.
Seriously, its so evident, that if you were truly bothered about comments not made from the opening post. We would see that reflecring on every single thread started by anyoine who did this.
So that claim is clearly born from the realms of "you must think the forum posters on here were born yesteray"
In other words, you are simple looking for any moment to deliberately attemped to start a conflict on a thread, where nothing was even stated to you.
Now I think that is hilarious

Please continue to hiss at me, using what can onlt be described as the worst total failure, at the application of stealth 

In review:
a.)You've accused me of being Beekeeper/Bee/Phil/Wolfman - numerous other current members and former members that you're highly paranoid about -
b.)you told me I was lying and you trolled me about that insult regarding the amusing 'LIE' in my post about the ACA
c.) you don't live in America and your grasp about our laws and the ACA is something that even our 4th graders grasp and you can't
d.) you are so clueless about the ACA as to be dangerous to anyone that would need info
e.) you were an asinine vile attacking member then and now is as always - BORING
f.) you seem mentally deranged to the point that you prefer to be ignored and crave that so...I'll place you back there and leave it so
g.) you don't know shit and using your blunt scissors to cut & paste is about what you're capable of --- great, enjoy it little one

See, there is all the evidence you need.
The view to bemoan about comments of threads, was a ruse.
Its abouyt the very fact, she cannot move on from where I proved she is a multi-ID and so she looks to disrupt threads I start lol.

I do not even need to live in America, many British people do not know as much British history as I do, so the false premise, that due to be from a country makes you an experrt. Is clearly born from the actually reality, of that poster has not going a clue on their history.

So if you want to sound off at me and by doing so, derail many threads. I just think that is hilarious and priceless and that as seen, I bother you that much.

Enjoy

Re the op... yes I agree!


Those who were actually there and doing it were responsible...


And their descendents are still there now!!!



Owning all the stolen land that their ancestors killed the indigenous people for...



And they have the cheek to try to tell me it was MY fault... because I'm British... although my ancestors never left the UK... never set foot in usa or australia... and were themselves living subjugated lives in poverty here in uk...



It's a funny old game!


Or at least it would be... if it was funny... or a game...

Tommy Monk wrote:Re the op... yes I agree!


Those who were actually there and doing it were responsible...


And their descendents are still there now!!!



Owning all the stolen land that their ancestors killed the indigenous people for...



And they have the cheek to try to tell me it was MY fault... because I'm British... although my ancestors never left the UK... never set foot in usa or australia... and were themselves living subjugated lives in poverty here in uk...



It's a funny old game!


Or at least it would be... if it was funny... or a game...

Again with your Ignorance

MOST land holders Where Britsh Lords who owned Vast swathes gifted by the Queen
New South wales in particular Had very few Free settlers, it is prison colony!!! most free people were Rum Corps
Or employed by the British lords and then Returned to Britian.

AND they were still exploiting these Crown leases up until the 1970's.

And We tried to kick the UK rule out several times in the 1800's but got massacred for trying

my ancestors never left the UK... never set foot in usa or australia... and were themselves living subjugated lives in poverty here in uk...

and Who Paid for the roads, bridges and building that raised England’s powers in the 1800's
it's colonies!!!
which is the point you feel that YOU alone have right to claim on England’s current Wealth but Your Ancestors Didn't pay for it! they got to sit around pissed off their faces on Gin, while others where stuck in chain gangs and forced to quarry stone and harvest lumber TO BUILD ENGLAND.

and the whole economic situation since the 1970's when the Greedy English mitts where finally pried off Aussies resources, highlights who were the Actual productive members of the commonwealth and who spent more than they produced.

And you blame all Muslims for shit individuals didn't do, you just have to accept that "the Evil British lord Vestey" is a real life character, yes those Lords gave Britain the bad name that is Now Cemented in history. I might add your ancestors failed to overthrow when France and the USA etc. were over throwing the royals and lords. So you’re as at fault as any Muslim

Tommy Monk wrote:

my ancestors never left the UK... never set foot in usa or australia... and were themselves living subjugated lives in poverty here in uk...

AND YET you and Stormee are on here everyday claiming your sole right to todays Britain -- enjoying the spoils that built your country up on the backs of dozens of overseas colonies, occasionally claiming that "we fought for what we have today..", even when those fights were done and dusted well before you were even a mere glint in your dear daddy's eye -- while selfishly stating that you owe nothing to those foreign lands that were often ravished, over-exploited and then deserted, by your own homeland...

veya_victaous wrote:and Who Paid for the roads, bridges and building that raised England’s powers in the 1800's
it's colonies!!!
which is the point you feel that YOU alone have right to claim on England’s current Wealth but Your Ancestors Didn't pay for it! they got to sit around pissed off their faces on Gin, while others where stuck in chain gangs and forced to quarry stone and harvest lumber TO BUILD ENGLAND.

and the whole economic situation since the 1970's when the Greedy English mitts where finally pried off Aussies resources, highlights who were the Actual productive members of the commonwealth and who spent more than they produced.

And you blame all Muslims for shit individuals didn't do, you just have to accept that "the Evil British lord Vestey" is a real life character, yes those Lords gave Britain the bad name that is Now Cemented in history. I might add your ancestors failed to overthrow when France and the USA etc. were over throwing the royals and lords. So you’re as at fault as any Muslim

So, let's get this straight. Aussies are all descended from British Lords or Crim Scumbags? Which is it?

HoratioTarr wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:
and Who Paid for the roads, bridges and building that raised England’s powers in the 1800's
it's colonies!!!
which is the point you feel that YOU alone have right to claim on England’s current Wealth but Your Ancestors Didn't pay for it! they got to sit around pissed off their faces on Gin, while others where stuck in chain gangs and forced to quarry stone and harvest lumber TO BUILD ENGLAND.

and the whole economic situation since the 1970's when the Greedy English mitts where finally pried off Aussies resources, highlights who were the Actual productive members of the commonwealth and who spent more than they produced.

And you blame all Muslims for shit individuals didn't do, you just have to accept that "the Evil British lord Vestey" is a real life character, yes those Lords gave Britain the bad name that is Now Cemented in history. I might add your ancestors failed to overthrow when France and the USA etc. were over throwing the royals and lords. So you’re as at fault as any Muslim
,

So, let's get this straight.   Aussies are all descended from British Lords or Crim Scumbags?  Which is it?

A SMALL portion indisputably were...

However ==

NOT ALL convicts were "scumbags";
24%  of today's Aussie citizens were born overseas;
There is still significant indigenous Aboriginal 'blood' among another portion;
Hundreds of thousands of free selttlers came here during the 19th century;
Followed by waves of 'New Australians' after WWII and Vietnam..
And immigrants just keep on heading down  this way..

AND DESPITE these constant witless mutterings from    's like you, Horatio, Australia still remains one of the most successfully multicultural countries around.

                                                          

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

So, let's get this straight.   Aussies are all descended from British Lords or Crim Scumbags?  Which is it?

A SMALL portion indisputably were...

However ==

NOT ALL convicts were "scumbags";
24%  of today's Aussie citizens were born overseas;
There is still significant indigenous Aboriginal 'blood' among another portion;
Hundreds of thousands of free selttlers came here during the 19th century;
Followed by waves of 'New Australians' after WWII and Vietnam..
And immigrants just keep on heading down  this way..

AND DESPITE these constant witless mutterings from    's like you, Horatio, Australia still remains one of the most successfully multicultural countries around.

::

You have a better class of scumbag than the UK, then?

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

So, let's get this straight.   Aussies are all descended from British Lords or Crim Scumbags?  Which is it?

A SMALL portion indisputably were...

However ==

NOT ALL convicts were "scumbags";
24%  of today's Aussie citizens were born overseas;
:

We're not talking about 'today's' Aussies though. I'm talking about Aussie origins...seeing as British origins and blame are being flung around like monkey shit here.

The British pound is worth 2 Australian dollers!

Tommy Monk wrote:Re the op... yes I agree!


Those who were actually there and doing it were responsible...


And their descendents are still there now!!!



Owning all the stolen land that their ancestors killed the indigenous people for...



And they have the cheek to try to tell me it was MY fault... because I'm British... although my ancestors never left the UK... never set foot in usa or australia... and were themselves living subjugated lives in poverty here in uk...



It's a funny old game!


Or at least it would be... if it was funny... or a game...

The constant deflection and bluster from the colonials is quite amusing though.

veya_victaous wrote:and Who Paid for the roads, bridges and building that raised England’s powers in the 1800's
it's colonies!!!
which is the point you feel that YOU alone have right to claim on England’s current Wealth but Your Ancestors Didn't pay for it! they got to sit around pissed off their faces on Gin, while others where stuck in chain gangs and forced to quarry stone and harvest lumber TO BUILD ENGLAND.

and the whole economic situation since the 1970's when the Greedy English mitts where finally pried off Aussies resources, highlights who were the Actual productive members of the commonwealth and who spent more than they produced.

And you blame all Muslims for shit individuals didn't do, you just have to accept that "the Evil British lord Vestey" is a real life character, yes those Lords gave Britain the bad name that is Now Cemented in history. I might add your ancestors failed to overthrow when France and the USA etc. were over throwing the royals and lords. So you’re as at fault as any Muslim

Rubbish!

Money was in circulation long before any colonies were in existence.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Re the op... yes I agree!


Those who were actually there and doing it were responsible...


And their descendents are still there now!!!



Owning all the stolen land that their ancestors killed the indigenous people for...



And they have the cheek to try to tell me it was MY fault... because I'm British... although my ancestors never left the UK... never set foot in usa or australia... and were themselves living subjugated lives in poverty here in uk...



It's a funny old game!


Or at least it would be... if it was funny... or a game...

The constant deflection and bluster from the colonials is quite amusing though.

Yes.. the deflection and bluster is definitely most amusing!!!

Double posted - deleted

HoratioTarr wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

So, let's get this straight.   Aussies are all descended from British Lords or Crim Scumbags?  Which is it?

A SMALL portion indisputably were...

However ==

NOT ALL convicts were "scumbags";
24%  of today's Aussie citizens were born overseas;
:

We're not talking about 'today's' Aussies though.  I'm talking about Aussie origins...seeing as British origins and blame are being flung around like monkey shit here.  

So you really don't know how the Empire worked

Lords sent their lackeys to superivise properties in their name
Just like the lords didn't live on their slave plantation in Jamacia etc they didn't live in Australia Among the convicts that were basically enslaved to work their land. they just owned everything and sent the produce back to England.
And Most convicts were simply the lower class, 'theft of bread' was one of the common crimes to be transported for really it was just a way to fill the gap that was created with the ending of enslaving blacks by Britian.

So in the early days majority that stayed were convicts and their families, although some of the lord's lackeys stayed too.

Aussies don't really exist until federation, 1901, and even that was appeasement to stop a full revolution so that the Lords/Crown didn't lose their land holdings like they did in the USA. During the 1800's due to fear of a revolution, like the USA, any rebellions were dealt with swiftly and harshly.

Tommy Monk wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:and Who Paid for the roads, bridges and building that raised England’s powers in the 1800's
it's colonies!!!
which is the point you feel that YOU alone have right to claim on England’s current Wealth but Your Ancestors Didn't pay for it! they got to sit around pissed off their faces on Gin, while others where stuck in chain gangs and forced to quarry stone and harvest lumber TO BUILD ENGLAND.

and the whole economic situation since the 1970's when the Greedy English mitts where finally pried off Aussies resources, highlights who were the Actual productive members of the commonwealth and who spent more than they produced.

And you blame all Muslims for shit individuals didn't do, you just have to accept that "the Evil British lord Vestey" is a real life character, yes those Lords gave Britain the bad name that is Now Cemented in history. I might add your ancestors failed to overthrow when France and the USA etc. were over throwing the royals and lords. So you’re as at fault as any Muslim

Rubbish!

Money was in circulation long before any colonies were in existence.

Money from the 13 colonies that rebelled in 1776 was in circulation. Plus all the Island nations that you guys had been raping already.
in 1777 Captian Cook is sent to confirm Australia's existance and colony established 1788.
Pretty much a direct response to losing the vital Lumber supplies coming out of America that were needed to maintain the british navy

You twits are so Proud of a History you don't even bother to educate yourself on

I just never heard anybody claim Native Americans weren't the victims of a genocide, so I posted, "no shit?"

nicko wrote:The British pound is worth 2 Australian dollers!

And? when it was a kid it 3 times the value, You have dropped heaps....

that is just what the 'bit' is worth. it is just a division between the number in circulation and the trade demand.
not really relevant any way since economics uses US dollars so we convert to that before doing sums to determine the value of an economy and it's growth or contractions.

value of Average British persons production (in 2014) is about 46K in US dollars a year the value of the average aussies production is about 62K in US dollars per year.  the USA is about 53K

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?order=wbapi_data_value_2014+wbapi_data_value+wbapi_data_value-last&sort=desc

Ben_Reilly wrote:I just never heard anybody claim Native Americans weren't the victims of a genocide, so I posted, "no shit?"

Yes I have never heard anyone claim otherwise either

the whole "Last of the Mohicans" sort of implies it.

Tommy Monk wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:
and Who Paid for the roads, bridges and building that raised England’s powers in the 1800's
it's colonies!!!
which is the point you feel that YOU alone have right to claim on England’s current Wealth but Your Ancestors Didn't pay for it! they got to sit around pissed off their faces on Gin, while others where stuck in chain gangs and forced to quarry stone and harvest lumber TO BUILD ENGLAND.
....................................................
And you blame all Muslims for shit individuals didn't do, you just have to accept that "the Evil British lord Vestey" is a real life character, yes those Lords gave Britain the bad name that is Now Cemented in history. I might add your ancestors failed to overthrow when France and the USA etc. were over throwing the royals and lords. So you’re as at fault as any Muslim

Rubbish!

Money was in circulation long before any colonies were in existence.

IMAGINE if all of those dastardly Romans, Saxons, Vikings and Norman "illegal immigrants" hadn't visited Britain around 1100 -->> 2000 years ago -- with all of their monetary systems, roadworks, indoor plumbing, canals, written language, mathematics, engineering...

TOMMY'S ancestors and relatives would still be swinging through the trees by their tails..

AND IF Tommy doesn't understand the very principles of how money works, and why there has to be an underlying value sytem supporting the "intrinsic value" of that currency, and how Britain simply never had the necessary resource base to build the British Empire without needing to plunder foreign lands to do so -- THEN all that I can ask is --

WHY DOES Tommy even think that he's somehow qualified to keep on making his idiotic and pointless comments on these threads ???

nicko wrote:
The British pound is worth 2 Australian dollers!

JUST IMAGINE all of that whinging and whining you will have to endure from your fellow countrymen, when it inevitably tumbles around 30->40% or so, to return to it's more rightful longterm value of $1.50 -> $1.20, or less...

TO SEE just how volatile the British £ has been over the years, one has only to take note of how it's been bouncing around between $1.60 and $1.99 over recent months..

Raggamuffin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:
Re the op... yes I agree!

Those who were actually there and doing it were responsible...

And their descendents are still there now!!!

Owning all the stolen land that their ancestors killed the indigenous people for...

And they have the cheek to try to tell me it was MY fault... because I'm British... although my ancestors never left the UK... never set foot in usa or australia... and were themselves living subjugated lives in poverty here in uk...

It's a funny old game!

Or at least it would be... if it was funny... or a game...

The constant deflection and bluster from the colonials is quite amusing though.

WHAT IS far, far more amusing, though,  by far...

IS WATCHING Tommy proving his ignorant stupidity over and over and over again..

AND POOR OL'  Raggamuffin thinking that she has to keep on egging on Tommy to ever increasing depths of foolishness !

YOU TWO are far too easily "amused"..                        

4EVER2 wrote:

Didgey-Dooer stated >
Which translates to the following
That you are so constantly wound up and emotional. That where many people post threads and do not commnt. I have you slithering like the pathetic worm you are on the floor. So mush so you keep pathetical rearing your head up and hissing at me over this.
Seriously, its so evident, that if you were truly bothered about comments not made from the opening post. We would see that reflecring on every single thread started by anyoine who did this.
So that claim is clearly born from the realms of "you must think the forum posters on here were born yesteray"
In other words, you are simple looking for any moment to deliberately attemped to start a conflict on a thread, where nothing was even stated to you.
Now I think that is hilarious

Please continue to hiss at me, using what can onlt be described as the worst total failure, at the application of stealth 

In review:
a.)You've accused me of being Beekeeper/Bee/Phil/Wolfman - numerous other current members and former members that you're highly paranoid about -
b.)you told me I was lying and you trolled me about that insult regarding the amusing 'LIE' in my post about the ACA
c.) you don't live in America and your grasp about our laws and the ACA is something that even our 4th graders grasp and you can't
d.) you are so clueless about the ACA as to be dangerous to anyone that would need info
e.) you were an asinine vile attacking member then and now is as always - BORING
f.) you seem mentally deranged to the point that you prefer to be ignored and crave that so...I'll place you back there and leave it so
g.) you don't know shit and using your blunt scissors to cut & paste is about what you're capable of --- great, enjoy it little one

You Yanks sent General Custer out to wipe out as many tribes of Red Indians as he could including women and children and gave him medals for doing it and made a hero of him for doing it just so you could gain control over more land though.
Your history is no better than ours really as for slaughtering people for profit

Spot on Blackie, they tend to forget that!

nicko wrote:Spot on Blackie,    they tend to forget that!

I kind of like reading about History so learn bits about most periods of it but only bits of things that interest me and that does so some
things stick in my brain and some dont?????????????
I suppose most people think Wyatt Earp and Billy the kid etc are just fictional names dreamed up by some long forgotten author but they really
existed.
Then the story writers made up fantasy episodes and stories about them in films, that's real fame in my opinion so they will never be forgotten
just like great authors or artists. Hundreds of years from now they will still be writing about them and coming uo with new Jesse and Frank James
Western films.
They are legends of American history and always will be in my opinion and that's great really as it means they achieved fame that will last forever but never even realised they were doing it just like Oliver Cromwell over here or Shakespeare, none of them knew they would never be forgotten.
No pop bands can ever expect to reach that level of worldwide fame.
I watched something a couple of years or so ago about North Koreans and they'd never heard of the Beatles but they knew about Shakespeare

Lt. Col. George Armstrong Custer got his just deserts in the end though, didn't he...

Though during his short but controversial life his reputation swung between being a hero, a coward and a fraudulent scoundrel;

These days, 'Custers Last Stand' is regarded as an outstanding example of military incompetence, and is more often used in military colleges around the world as a case study in how not to wage a military campaign.          
With Crazy Horse and Chief Gall, under the command of Sitting Bull, now regarded as the much smarter leaders in that encounter..  

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Little_Bighorn

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/custer.htm

http://www.history.com/topics/native-american-history/battle-of-the-little-bighorn

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Lt. Col. George Armstrong Custer got his just deserts in the end though, didn't he...

Though during his short but controversial life his reputation swung between being a hero, a coward and a fraudulent scoundrel;

These days, 'Custers Last Stand' is regarded as an outstanding example of military incompetence, and is more often used in military colleges around the world as a case study in how not to wage a military campaign.          
With Crazy Horse and Chief Gall now regarded as the much smarter leaders in that encounter..  

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Little_Bighorn

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/custer.htm

Why is he still regarded as a hero by Americans even now though Wolfie and he is?

HOLLYWOOD inevitably has a lot to do with how the wrong people have often been glorified and deified over the years...

And how the Native Americans, negroes and Mexicans were demonised and degraded at the same time..

And how the US education system often taught those lies about those wonderful Puritans, Quakers and Shakers fleeing a non-existent "persecution" back in Europe, only to have to overcome nature and fight off those satanic savages to peacefully settle on their God-given lands.

Even in the 1970s and 1980s, American schools were telling students that America stood alone against those evil commies in Vietnam (despite the fact that the US had allied forces from 19 other countries over there with them -- with the Australian contingent being the second largest there..).

I guess most colonists hate the British, of course what they tend to forget is the fact they're also colonists, 2nd class once removed but still colonists, the scots colonised Ireland, the septics and zipper heads colonised the native Americans of North America, the Aussies and the Kiwis colonised the aborigines and the Maori, the South Africans the varying tribes of Southern Africa, the same colonisation took place in Pakistan and India by the Raj, and look at Hong Kong today, all of this happened long after the British left these shores to concentrate on empire building, beating the crap out of everyone else and tax collecting.

What I can't understand is the current trend to blame mother Blighty for all of your woes for this, perhaps these whingers would prefer, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, French or German rule.

Well hard luck! Great Britain got there first and succeeded and I praise and thank my ancestors for being the best at war and conquest, better than all the rest.

The thing is, most of these 2nd class colonists struggle to come to terms with the fact that they have no culture or language of their own, they should gladly accept the fact that their culture, flag and language are British and English, in effect for most colonists Britain and Britishness is the only culture they've ever known or are ever likely to know.

Personally I think the world is a better place because it was colonised by us Brits, and we still rule the roost as the most gifted culturally and most civilised nation on this planet, hopefully in the not to distant future we will lead the world once more with our new found optimism for socialism or at least a brand of it that fits in with the world we live in today.

Cecil Rhodes was perhaps the best and worse advocate for empire, and Goethe once remarked that the sun never sets on the British Empire because God doesn't trust the English in the dark.

When I listen to all the anti British whining on this forum, Rhodes was obviously correct when he said, to be born English means you've already won first prize in the lottery of life.

scrat wrote:I guess most colonists hate the British, of course what they tend to forget is the fact they're also colonists, 2nd class once removed but still colonists, the scots colonised Ireland, the septics and zipper heads colonised the native Americans of North America, the Aussies and the Kiwis colonised the aborigines and the Maori, the South Africans the varying tribes of Southern Africa, the same colonisation took place in Pakistan and India by the Raj, and look at Hong Kong today, all of this happened long after the British left these shores to concentrate on empire building, beating the crap out of everyone else and tax collecting.

What I can't understand is the current trend to blame mother Blighty for all of your woes for this, perhaps these whingers would prefer, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, French or German rule.

Well hard luck! Great Britain got there first and succeeded and I praise and thank my ancestors for being the best at war and conquest, better than all the rest.

The thing is, most of these 2nd class colonists struggle to come to terms with the fact that they have no culture or language of their own, they should gladly accept the fact that their culture, flag and language are British and English, in effect for most colonists Britain and Britishness is the only culture they've ever known or are ever likely to know.

Personally I think the world is a better place because it was colonised by us Brits, and we still rule the roost as the most gifted culturally and most civilised nation on this planet, hopefully in the not to distant future we will lead the world once more with our new found optimism for socialism or at least a brand of it that fits in with the world we live in today.

Cecil Rhodes was perhaps the best and worse advocate for empire, and Goethe once remarked that the sun never sets on the British Empire because God doesn't trust the English in the dark.

When I listen to all the anti British whining on this forum, Rhodes was obviously correct when he said, to be born English means you've already won first prize in the lottery of life.

Lets not talk about the Aborigines Scrat as the Aussies wiped them out completely and now they have nothing what
soever left of their heritage
that survived for thousands of years until the white man found Australia and took it all away from them.
Even the remotest of tribes are having their lands taken from them now just for loggers wanting rare woods or whatever.
Tribes who have never seen a white man in their lives are now being forced to learn our ways and not their own.
I'd rather go without anything rather than take a whole tribes ancient traditions and beliefs off them and inflict our boll*x religious beliefs on them.
They live the simplest of lives with no material possessions as such but they love the life they live so wealth means nothing.
I love that when everyone is equal.

blackie333 wrote:

scrat wrote:I guess most colonists hate the British, of course what they tend to forget is the fact they're also colonists, 2nd class once removed but still colonists, the scots colonised Ireland, the septics and zipper heads colonised the native Americans of North America, the Aussies and the Kiwis colonised the aborigines and the Maori, the South Africans the varying tribes of Southern Africa, the same colonisation took place in Pakistan and India by the Raj, and look at Hong Kong today, all of this happened long after the British left these shores to concentrate on empire building, beating the crap out of everyone else and tax collecting.

What I can't understand is the current trend to blame mother Blighty for all of your woes for this, perhaps these whingers would prefer, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, French or German rule.

Well hard luck! Great Britain got there first and succeeded and I praise and thank my ancestors for being the best at war and conquest, better than all the rest.

The thing is, most of these 2nd class colonists struggle to come to terms with the fact that they have no culture or language of their own, they should gladly accept the fact that their culture, flag and language are British and English, in effect for most colonists Britain and Britishness is the only culture they've ever known or are ever likely to know.

Personally I think the world is a better place because it was colonised by us Brits, and we still rule the roost as the most gifted culturally and most civilised nation on this planet, hopefully in the not to distant future we will lead the world once more with our new found optimism for socialism or at least a brand of it that fits in with the world we live in today.

Cecil Rhodes was perhaps the best and worse advocate for empire, and Goethe once remarked that the sun never sets on the British Empire because God doesn't trust the English in the dark.

When I listen to all the anti British whining on this forum, Rhodes was obviously correct when he said, to be born English means you've already won first prize in the lottery of life.

Lets not talk about the Aborigines Scrat as the Aussies wiped them out completely and now they have nothing wharsoever left of their heritage
that survived for thousands of years until the white man found Australia and took it all away from them.
Even the rfemotest of tribes are having their lands taken from them now just for loggers wanting rare woods or whatever.
Tribes who have never seen a white man in their lives are now being forced to learn our ways and not their own.
I'd rather go without anything rather than take a whole tribes ancient traditions and beliefs off them and inflict our boll*x religious beliefs on them.
They live the simplest of lives with no material possessions as such but they love the life they live so wealth means nothing.
I love that when everyone is equal

I agree! perhaps it would have been better for the planet if our species hadn't evolved but we did, and that's what the colonists need to come to terms with.

Why does everyone blame the British, never had anyone talked about the roman empire and what they did in Europe, Africa, Egypt etc. Rome had an Empire, and enslaved thousands, no millions when they invaded their lands.

The only reason Emperor Hadrian had the wall built wasn't to keep the English in, but to keep the Scots out, they couldn't fight them on their turf. Also Romans tried for hundreds of years to take this country even Caesar failed. It was only when Claudius become Emperor they did another surge to make him big infront of the people. King Caratacus led his tribes for many years to stop the Romans taking the country, until he and his family were captured and taken to Rome in chains. He was allowed to live his days there with his family, but was never allowed to return to Britain, or Albion as this country was called. The Romans named this country Britannicus, now Britain, when they invaded.

We never learned about this in school, only how great the Romans were, and they were, but they still enslaved, executed and invaded all the countries, for their gratification. Yet Britain is hated for it.

IT's all down to being jealous of our glorious history.

Hello scrat nice to "see" you.

Love from "Penfold"

nicko wrote:IT's all down to being jealous of our glorious history.

Hello scrat nice to "see" you.

Love from "Penfold"

Hi Penfold, it is a lot more than just jealousy, it's a form of denial awash with self loathing and self pity.

magica wrote:Why does everyone blame the British, never had anyone talked about the roman empire and what they did in Europe, Africa, Egypt etc.   Rome had an Empire, and enslaved thousands, no millions when they invaded their lands.

The only reason Emperor Hadrian had the wall  built wasn't to keep the English in, but to keep the Scots out, they couldn't fight them on their turf.  Also Romans tried for hundreds of years to take this country even Caesar failed.  It was only when Claudius become Emperor they did another surge to make him big infront of the people.  King Caratacus led his tribes for many years to stop the Romans taking the country, until he and his family were captured and taken to Rome in chains.  He was allowed to live his days there with his family, but was never allowed to return to Britain, or Albion as this country was called.  The Romans named this country Britannicus, now Britain, when they invaded.

We never learned about this in school, only how great the Romans were, and they were, but they still enslaved, executed and invaded all the countries, for their gratification. Yet Britain is hated for it.

Because you try and rewrite history to blame others and don't accept any blame yourself and The romans were throughly Fucked up at the end and England so far has escaped any sort of justice and refuses to even acknowledge the reparations is Owes others if it is ever to be considered civil.

like blackie blaming the people in Chains with no vote or choice
Over the Englishmen that made a fortune raping the new world.
even When the Aussies were free'd from the English Chains and Lashes, english lords fought tooth and nail to stop the aussie giving the Aboriginal back the land the English men had stole.

Reality is Until either England IS Rubble like Rome or Actually displays some civility and remorse and starts paying some reparations for it horrendus crimes against humanity, yes it deserves to be blamed and hated by any and every good peoples. it is rigth that we teach the Evil that was the British empire so We can Ensure such and evil is never allowed to rise again.

Nothing stopping the Aussies giving it back... it's them who have it all... not us over here...

What about the Portuguese who traded in slaves, the French, the Arabs who are still doing it btw.  The Americans for taking the land from the Indians and before you say the British did that, it was an American President who allowed it and double crossed the Indians.

Yes we British did many things, but so did many other countries.  As I said the Romans ruled their empire for hundreds of years enslaving all, but nothing is said about them.

veya_victaous wrote:

magica wrote:Why does everyone blame the British, never had anyone talked about the roman empire and what they did in Europe, Africa, Egypt etc.   Rome had an Empire, and enslaved thousands, no millions when they invaded their lands.

The only reason Emperor Hadrian had the wall  built wasn't to keep the English in, but to keep the Scots out, they couldn't fight them on their turf.  Also Romans tried for hundreds of years to take this country even Caesar failed.  It was only when Claudius become Emperor they did another surge to make him big infront of the people.  King Caratacus led his tribes for many years to stop the Romans taking the country, until he and his family were captured and taken to Rome in chains.  He was allowed to live his days there with his family, but was never allowed to return to Britain, or Albion as this country was called.  The Romans named this country Britannicus, now Britain, when they invaded.

We never learned about this in school, only how great the Romans were, and they were, but they still enslaved, executed and invaded all the countries, for their gratification. Yet Britain is hated for it.

Because you try and rewrite history to blame others and don't accept any blame yourself and The romans were throughly Fucked up at the end and England so far has escaped any sort of justice and refuses to even acknowledge the reparations is Owes others if it is ever to be considered civil.

like blackie blaming the people in Chains with no vote or choice
Over the Englishmen that made a fortune raping the new world.
even When the Aussies were free'd from the English Chains and Lashes, english lords fought tooth and nail to stop the aussie giving the Aboriginal back the land the English men had stole.

Reality is Until either England IS Rubble like Rome or Actually displays some civility and remorse and starts paying some reparations for it horrendus crimes against humanity, yes it deserves to be blamed and hated by any and every good peoples. it is rigth that we teach the Evil that was the British empire so We can Ensure such and evil is never allowed to rise again.

Without the Dutch and British there would be no Australia, as you know it now. South America would not be the place it is today if not for the Spanish and Portuguese. Just as Europe and Britain would not be the place it is now had the Romans not conquered us. And then we have the Ottoman Empire, who conquered and occupied territories spanning 3 continents.

Just who exactly do you think should be 'paid' for crimes that took place in the 1500s? And how exactly?

Because the Romans are Long dead
British were still Commiting Crimes agaisnt humanity into the 1980's

And Even the Roman's did Jack shit compared to the damage the English did,
Roman empire barely covered the second smallest continent and generally they conquered their neighbours.
The British travelled around the globe to rape and pilliage.
the British Enslaved More people and more land just in India than ALL of the roman's empire.

magica wrote:What about the Portuguese who traded in slaves, the French, the Arabs who are still doing it btw.  The Americans for taking the land from the Indians and before you say the British did that, it was an American President who allowed it and double crossed the Indians.

Yes we British did many things, but so did many other countries.  As I said the Romans ruled their empire for hundreds of years enslaving all, but nothing is said about them.

England has been invaded many times. The Normans. The Anglo Saxons. The Romans. The Spanish gave it a go..... And damn those Vikings!