Tully-
First off I need to learn how to quote segments like you just did, that would make this soooo much easier.
Since I haven't yet, moving on.
Quote:
You said-
Quote:
Natives? Ditto, every other country on the face of the earth, unless they were stopped
Did the Romans and Brits have an impact, sure. Do they still control all the land they invaded. No.
As for Japan, you're talking, other then some small islands near the main island, about hostilities within Japan, not some foreign attacking force wiping out the indigenous people.
|
Quote:
|
Nothing you've posted shows all nations have either been taken over or fought off some invading foreign force. I believe your understanding of world history is a bit lacking.
|
Yes I exaggerated. As far as my history being lacking, I will never know enough about history. The fact that it is being rewritten almost annually by new anthropological discoveries doesn't help. Nor does the fact that the victors get to write their version and the defeated nothing. I tend to view history in a broader scope and generalities.
My point is, everyone came from somewhere else at some time and once they were there had to defend their land or be slaughtered. Often the first to settle an area are not now the current inhabitants. You are correct, it did not happen everywhere. It did happen more often than not. That was why I included "unless they were stopped". Anthropology is not showing virtually
all existing nation lie on the ruins of a former people. The US, Canada and Australia still having Aboriginal people intact are just easier to point a finger at.
I disagree with your assessment of Japan as well. If you are an inhabitant of an Island and consider yourself and your people to be 'of' that island, you are a native nation. When a neighboring (non-native to your island) island invades you and makes you part of their nation, you have indeed been invaded and assimilated by a foreign nation. Wiped out, no. Although certainly there were casualties.
Quote:
|
As for Japan, you're talking, other then some small islands near the main island, about hostilities within Japan, not some foreign attacking force wiping out the indigenous people.
|
I'm not sure how you define 'foreign force'. We (Europeans) were here and established before the real blood shed began. I don't condone what happened, nor do I look at it as a foreign invading force. As history shows, when two or more nations occupy the same territory and don't have agreeable life styles, the stronger will destroy the weaker.
Quote:
|
That is unless of course your ancestors lived on the North American Continent 500-or 600 plus years ago. Then you're here because you manged to survive what the invading peoples did to your peoples.
|
They too left their native lands to arrive here, be it long before we did. They did come looking for greener pastures.
Also Native Americans are a sovereign nation within our borders, I was not referring to them in the original statement.
African Americans (or whatever the politically correct phrase of the day is), immigrants now out number the descendants of slavery. Former slaves were granted amnesty by Lincoln and had the choice to return to Africa if they so desired. They did not, so while they did not leave their home nation by choice, they did effectively abandon it by not returning.
Mexican, thank you for the correction, I was confusing Incas and Aztecs. They, non-the-less, are not doing so well. Thank you Spain.
Quote:
I agree with much of what you're saying here. I think the news is reporting on the protests currently happening by the right. Though Fox is more cheer leading then reporting. It's not reporting when your producers stand behind the reporter and make gestures to whip up the crowd. It's also not reporting when you use footage that's two months old to show what a huge crowd has gathered to protest.
I think the left was upset with Bush over a lot more then just his actions in the Middle East. Just as I think the right is upset with Obama for a lot more then just the health care law.
Personally I think it's important to note that Bush was elected by 50.7% to Kerry's 48.3%. Not exactly a mandate. Obama won with 53% to McCain's 47%. Again not exactly a mandate. But as you pointed out when Bush won and was in office many on the left were "gnashing their teeth and crying in the streets." Now that Obama is POTUS we're seeing the same thing by people on the right.
So laugh or cry seems to depend on whether or not your side is in power.
|
Originally, I was referring specifically to the media coverage of protesters in the street. It has dropped off significantly with the new administration, yet the war continues. Personally, I'm having a hard time finding any reliable American Media. They all seem to have an agenda. I view all the news channels, read several newspapers, scour the web and seek outside media (mostly BBC and Canadian news). I then develop my own opinion of what is happening based on all I have seen and read. The disparities amongst the various sources are numerous. There is no single news source I trust to deliver the truth.
---------- Post added at 02:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:34 PM ----------
SWEET! It looks like I did figure out how to multi-quote. Yea me.