[yiwahikanak]

Settler Colonialism refers to the deliberate theft of land and resources and removal/genocide/dispossession of indigenous peoples through direct colonial presence. Settler Colonialism is marked by what Cherokee scholar Andre Smith refers to as the three pillars of white supremacy: slavery/capitalism, genocide/colonialism and orientalism/war (http://supportblackmesa.org/wp-content/ ... illars.pdf).

When viewed in this way, one must acknowledge the ways in which those people's oppressed by Settler Colonialism can also engage in lateral violence against one another as they struggle within the Settler Colonial paradigm. However, it must always remain clear that institutional power is not held by these groups.

I started this thread to discuss Settler Colonialism rather than internal Settler Colonial political divisions, which do not interest me much, as none of them question all three pillars of white supremacy, if they question any of the three at all.

[mikema63]

slavery/capitalism, genocide/colonialism and orientalism/war

Slavery is bad, genocide is bad, war is bad, colonialism is bad, capitalism is bad, googling orientalism gave me something that I suspect isn't what you mean but I'll just go ahead and say its bad.

Thus any system I hold would include these things being undesirable.

So I have apparently fallen through the cracks of settler colonialism while holding an ideology you called settler colonialist.

So either your interpretation of my ideology is flawed, my understanding of my own beliefs is incredibly flawed, or the idea itself is simplistic nonsense.

[Allerton]

I'm so angry at those dirty Normans and their settler colonialism. It was a complete genocide of the Anglo-Saxon people. God rest King Godwinson.

[yiwahikanak]

Slavery is bad, genocide is bad, war is bad, colonialism is bad, capitalism is bad, googling orientalism gave me something that I suspect isn't what you mean but I'll just go ahead and say its bad.

Thus any system I hold would include these things being undesirable.

So I have apparently fallen through the cracks of settler colonialism while holding an ideology you called settler colonialist.

So either your interpretation of my ideology is flawed, my understanding of my own beliefs is incredibly flawed, or the idea itself is simplistic nonsense.

It might be best to read the linked document. It is very short, and saves me having to cut and paste.

If you live in a settler colonial state, you benefit from all of these factors, as they maintain the supposed legitimacy of that state. Merely thinking these things are bad, without doing anything to actively change them, means nothing and maintains colonialism.

[mikema63]

How do you know my level of effort in trying to change things?

Besides, it is often claimed that no matter what is done the "stain" can never be removed. There is nothing that can be done to actually satisfy.

[MadMonk]

It has taken me a long time to figure out how to approach this thread, after skimming through your link in the OP it actually made it more difficult.

We didn't choose to whom we were borne, the color of our skin or the country to which we made "our own". We are all small ants on a gigantic anthill, all of us struggling for a better life, for some easier than others.

We didn't create history, we didn't create today's society (on a individual basis anyway). All we can do is try to make it better.

I would like to think that it is getting better and better, too slow perhaps, but improvement still. I can't help but feel that holding on to historical grievances is precisely what has created most of the bad and justified most of the evil in the world.

I look back at life/attitudes/knowledge/believes a hundred years ago and I see much improvement in today's world, as it had improved from a hundred years before that. I dream that it will continue to do so.

I guess my question would be; Do you see any reconciliation, ever? Or are we all forever stuck in vicious struggle based on the sins of our fathers and our fathers-fathers and so on.

[U184]

All of the things mentioned in the OP are things that all societies who engage in wars/battles are 'guilty' of. 'Colonialism', used in this manner is rather disingenuous, at least when trying to saddle the white race with subjecting indigenous peoples to associated activities of colonialism/occupation.

When looking at the indigenous peoples of North America, one sees that the majority of these groups fought with one another, killed one another, enslaved one another, took by force territorial settlement areas, territorial hunting grounds, migratory routes, etc.

These same indigenous peoples subjugated other tribes, took positions of supremacy and exhibited all the negative aspects that the OP attributes solely to colonialism.

When viewed in this way, one must acknowledge that colonialism was and is, no different than any other form of war and or, forced occupation.

[Pants-of-dog]

These same indigenous peoples subjugated other tribes, took positions of supremacy and exhibited all the negative aspects that the OP attributes solely to colonialism.

Please present evidence for this claim. Thank you.

[U184]

You want me to present evidence that... tribes fought one another in tribal conflicts, that members of one tribe often took prisoners during these conflicts and enslaved them, that tribes fought for territory, hunting grounds and out of animosity, that one tribe was stronger than another and thus was able to subjugate them... really?

Why would you ask me to post an entire historical research paper on such a simple truth?

Are there particular aspects that you would like to contest, or are you unaware of the precolonial history and culture of the various indigenous peoples of North America?

[Pants-of-dog]

You want me to present evidence that... tribes fought one another in tribal conflicts, that members of one tribe often took prisoners during these conflicts and enslaved them, that tribes fought for territory, hunting grounds and out of animosity, that one tribe was stronger than another and thus was able to subjugate them... really?

Why would you ask me to post an entire historical research paper on such a simple truth?

Are there particular aspects that you would like to contest, or are you unaware of the precolonial history and culture of the various indigenous peoples of North America?

I want you to show that indigenous tribes engaged in colonialism, as you claimed.

[U184]

I want you to show that indigenous tribes engaged in colonialism, as you claimed.

These same indigenous peoples subjugated other tribes, took positions of supremacy and exhibited all the negative aspects that the OP attributes solely to colonialism.

I did not make a 'claim' I stated that indigenous tribes exhibited negative traits ascribed in the OP to colonialism.

That being...

deliberate theft of land and resources and removal/genocide/dispossession of indigenous peoples

In this instance I equate a colony with that of a tribe, or nation of a particular class of North American indigenous peoples. As such, tribes/nations have engaged in the deliberate theft of land and resources and removal/genocide/dispossession of other tribes/nations within North America and elsewhere.

Colonialism is the establishment, exploitation, maintenance, acquisition and expansion of colonies in one territory by people from another territory.

[Pants-of-dog]

Please note that you still haven't posted any evidence.

And also please note that you are not discussing the same colonialsim as the OP described, despite your assertion.

[U184]

Please note that you still haven't posted any evidence.

Please note that I asked you if you would like to contest any portion of my statement. You responded with:

I want you to show that indigenous tribes engaged in colonialism

As I explained, I said they shared traits, the same traits listed by the OP as being in line with colonialism. Thus I am not suggesting that said people engaged in colonialism, I am suggesting that said people engaged in activities that are universal to all mankind and that the OP's list of negative traits are not unique to colonialism.

Please do not twist my words, their meaning, or their context. Thank you.

So I will ask again, what part of the statement below do you contest?

tribes fought one another in tribal conflicts, that members of one tribe often took prisoners during these conflicts and enslaved them, that tribes fought for territory, hunting grounds and out of animosity, that one tribe was stronger than another and thus was able to subjugate them

For fear of more of your word games, I will makes this rather easy for you.

Do you deny that:

A) Tribes fought one another in tribal conflicts.
B) Members of one tribe often took prisoners during these conflicts and enslaved them.
C) Tribes fought for territory, hunting grounds and out of animosity.
D) That one tribe could be stronger than another and thus would able to subjugate them.

Once you have communicated the points that you contest, I will be happy to engage those points.

And also please note that you are not discussing the same colonialsim as the OP described, despite your assertion

Please present evidence for this claim. Thank you.

[Pants-of-dog]

Please note that I asked you if you would like to contest any portion of my statement. You responded with:

...

Please present evidence for this claim. Thank you.

Okay, so rather than address the OP, you're just make up your own strawman and deal with that.

Let me know when you want to discuss the OP.

[U184]

Why do you constantly start shit?

You asked a question, I answered you. It was not good enough, so I again responded and asked you to clarify your arguments.

I have provided a list of the points you asked me to provide evidence for, so you can let me know what ones you want to debate.

You refuse to answer a simple question and fail to provide the same respect you ask me to give to you.

The only 'strawman' argument here is yours.

So again,

Do you deny that:

A) Tribes fought one another in tribal conflicts.
B) Members of one tribe often took prisoners during these conflicts and enslaved them.
C) Tribes fought for territory, hunting grounds and out of animosity.
D) That one tribe could be stronger than another and thus would able to subjugate them.

Once you have communicated the points that you contest, I will be happy to engage those points.

Let me know when you want to discuss the OP.

[Pants-of-dog]

Why do you constantly start shit?

You asked a question, I answered you. It was not good enough, so I again responded and asked you to clarify your arguments.

I have provided a list of the points you asked me to provide evidence for, so you can let me know what ones you want to debate.

You refuse to answer a simple question and fail to provide the same respect you ask me to give to you.

The only 'strawman' argument here is yours.

So again,

Do you deny that:

A) Tribes fought one another in tribal conflicts.
B) Members of one tribe often took prisoners during these conflicts and enslaved them.
C) Tribes fought for territory, hunting grounds and out of animosity.
D) That one tribe could be stronger than another and thus would able to subjugate them.

Once you have communicated the points that you contest, I will be happy to engage those points.

Let me know when you want to discuss the OP.

The OP said:

Settler Colonialism refers to the deliberate theft of land and resources and removal/genocide/dispossession of indigenous peoples through direct colonial presence. Settler Colonialism is marked by what Cherokee scholar Andre Smith refers to as the three pillars of white supremacy: slavery/capitalism, genocide/colonialism and orientalism/war (http://supportblackmesa.org/wp-content/ ... illars.pdf).

How does what you wrote relate to that?

[U184]

I will answer, even though you refused to show me the same amount of respect that you expect from others.

Settler Colonialism refers to the deliberate theft of land and resources and removal/genocide/dispossession of indigenous peoples through direct colonial presence. Settler Colonialism is marked by what Cherokee scholar Andre Smith refers to as the three pillars of white supremacy: slavery/capitalism, genocide/colonialism and orientalism/war

All of the things mentioned in the OP are things that all societies who engage in wars/battles are 'guilty' of. 'Colonialism', used in this manner is rather disingenuous, at least when trying to saddle the white race with subjecting indigenous peoples to associated activities of colonialism/occupation.

When looking at the indigenous peoples of North America, one sees that the majority of these groups fought with one another, killed one another, enslaved one another, took by force territorial settlement areas, territorial hunting grounds, migratory routes, etc.

These same indigenous peoples subjugated other tribes, took positions of supremacy and exhibited all the negative aspects that the OP attributes solely to colonialism.

When viewed in this way, one must acknowledge that colonialism was and is, no different than any other form of war and or, forced occupation.

How does what you wrote relate to that?

As I explained, I said they shared traits, the same traits listed by the OP as being in line with colonialism. Thus I am not suggesting that said people engaged in colonialism, I am suggesting that said people engaged in activities that are universal to all mankind and that the OP's list of negative traits are not unique to colonialism.

In this instance I equate a colony with that of a tribe, or nation of a particular class of North American indigenous peoples. As such, tribes/nations have engaged in the deliberate theft of land and resources and removal/genocide/dispossession of other tribes/nations within North America and elsewhere.

So to make this clear. Since the above somehow was not...

Yiwahikanak makes the assertion that Settler Colonialism refers to the deliberate theft of land and resources and removal/genocide/dispossession of indigenous peoples. My response relates to the OP in that, indigenous peoples engaged in the deliberate theft of land and resources and removal/genocide/dispossession of other indigenous peoples.

Thus the connection is that, said indigenous peoples share the same traits of settler colonialism, in that they both engaged in the deliberate theft of land and resources and removal/genocide/dispossession of indigenous peoples.

So the act of deliberate theft of land and resources and removal/genocide/dispossession of indigenous peoples, is a shared trait by both indigenous peoples and said settlers. When viewed in this way, one must acknowledge that colonialism was and is, no different than any other form of war and or, forced occupation.

The OP starts with a false dichotomy, in that the OP describes settler colonialism as mutually exclusive, to the actions of said indigenous peoples.

Since the given description of said settler colonialism depends on the assertion that settler colonialism is defined by, the deliberate theft of land and resources and removal/genocide/dispossession of indigenous peoples and the fact being that said indigenous peoples can also be seen engaging in, the deliberate theft of land and resources and removal/genocide/dispossession of other indigenous peoples, then the two are not mutually exclusive and thus is a false dichotomy.

The above being true, settler colonialism has less to do with 'white supremacy', as it has to do with 'supremacy' in general. Other than the fact that in this case the people doing the forced occupation had a different skin color.

What one takes away from the above is not that the deliberate theft of land and resources and removal/genocide/dispossession of indigenous peoples is a bad, or negative act, but it is only a bad, or negative act when it is done by those who are white.

As pointed out in the PDF by Andrea Smith, when one makes the argument about color it becomes about "oppression olympics"

So then that being settled...

That would bring us to a completely separate discussion about the three pillars of white supremacy: slavery/capitalism, genocide/colonialism and orientalism/war.

Slavery:

One pillar of white supremacy is the logic of slavery. This logic renders black people as inherently enslaveable—as nothing more than property. That is, in this logic of white supremacy, blackness becomes equated with slaveability.

This then becomes about racism. It centers around the concept that said slavery is a white racial construct. Since indigenous people of color also practiced slavery, the whole concept of white supremacy, in regards to slavery falls apart. As the issue is not about racism, it is about slavery.

As I have argued elsewhere, the general premiss behind organising by “people of colour” as well as “ethnic studies” is that communities of colour share overlapping experiences of oppression around which they can compare and organise.

It should be noted as well that, said indigenous people of color, also took whites as slaves so slavery in this instance is a shared cultural construct, not a white racial construct.

Because of the above we can see that since both whites and said indigenous people of color practiced slavery, then both can share overlapping experiences of being oppressors and the oppressed, around which they can compare notes.

Neither being better, nor worse than the other, both sharing the same basic principal of slavery as a cultural practice and that said practice had nothing to do with racism.



Genocide:

A second pillar of white supremacy is the logic of genocide. This logic holds that indigenous peoples must disappear. In fact, they must always be disappearing, in order to enable non-indigenous peoples’ rightful claim to land. Through this logic of genocide, non-Native peoples then become the rightful inheritors of all that was indigenous—land, resources, indigenous spirituality, and culture. Genocide serves as the anchor of colonialism: it is what allows non-Native peoples to feel they can rightfully own indigenous peoples’ land. It is acceptable exclusively to possess land that is the home of indigenous peoples because indigenous peoples have disappeared.

This argument is as devoid as the one above and for the same reasons. Those being that indigenous peoples fought other indigenous peoples and engaged in genocide of those OTHER indigenous peoples.

So, logic holds that indigenous peoples must disappear. In fact, they must always be disappearing, in order to enable OTHER indigenous peoples rightful claim to land.

The above is called forceful occupation and is practiced by both the white colonial settlers and the indigenous peoples of North America.

Through this logic of genocide, OTHER indigenous peoples then become the rightful inheritors of all that was owned by OTHER indigenous tribes —land, resources, indigenous spirituality, and culture.

Genocide serves as the anchor of forceful occupation: it is what allows one tribe to feel they can rightfully own other tribes’ land.

It is acceptable exclusively to possess land that is the home of others because those others have been removed by forceful occupation.

So again, because of the above we can see that since both whites and said indigenous people of color practiced forceful occupation, then both can share overlapping experiences of being oppressors and the oppressed, around which they can compare notes.

Neither being better, nor worse than the other, both sharing the same basic principal of forceful occupation as a cultural practice and that said practice had nothing to do with racism.



Orientalism:

A third pillar of white supremacy is the logic of orientalism. “Orientalism” was Edward Said’s term for the process of the West’s defining itself as a superior civilisation by constructing itself in opposition to an “exotic” but inferior “Orient”.4 (Here, I am using the term “orientalism” more broadly than to signify solely what has been historically named as the “orient” or “Asia”.) The logic of orientalism marks certain peoples or nations as inferior and deems them to be a constant threat to the wellbeing of empire. These peoples are still seen as “civilisations”—they are not property or the “disappeared”. However, they are imagined as permanent foreign threats to empire.

The same concept of war can also be seen within the tribal conflicts seen historically practiced by... wait for it... indigenous peoples of North America.



The entire paper is a practice in false dichotomy, the author continuously uses racial constructs and applies them to existing constructs and in doing so, tries and fails, to present an argument that shows that white people do the same things that other people do, but that whites do those things out of racism.

Since people of color also engage in all of the above, both to other people of color and to people who happen to be white, then those actions have nothing to do with 'white supremacy'.


These actions are intrinsic to the human condition and are shared by most cultures.

Trying to place those concepts on the door of racism, is rather quaint, at best.

[Pants-of-dog]

Settler Colonialism refers to the deliberate theft of land and resources and removal/genocide/dispossession of indigenous peoples through direct colonial presence. Settler Colonialism is marked by what Cherokee scholar Andre Smith refers to as the three pillars of white supremacy: slavery/capitalism, genocide/colonialism and orientalism/war

So to make this clear. Since the above somehow was not...

Yiwahikanak makes the assertion that Settler Colonialism refers to the deliberate theft of land and resources and removal/genocide/dispossession of indigenous peoples. My response relates to the OP in that, indigenous peoples engaged in the deliberate theft of land and resources and removal/genocide/dispossession of other indigenous peoples.

You seem to be selectively quoting only bits of the OP. I.e. you are ignoring those parts that differentiate settler colonialism from other types of colonialism.

Thus the connection is that, said indigenous peoples share the same traits of settler colonialism, in that they both engaged in the deliberate theft of land and resources and removal/genocide/dispossession of indigenous peoples.

Did they engage in racism and capitalism?

The above being true, settler colonialism has less to do with 'white supremacy', as it has to do with 'supremacy' in general. Other than the fact that in this case the people doing the forced occupation had a different skin color.

In other words, if you ignore certain parts of the OP, you can shoehorn the discussion into your strawman.

What one takes away from the above is not that the deliberate theft of land and resources and removal/genocide/dispossession of indigenous peoples is a bad, or negative act, but it is only a bad, or negative act when it is done by those who are white.

As pointed out in the PDF by Andrea Smith, when one makes the argument about color it becomes about "oppression olympics"

So then that being settled...

That would bring us to a completely separate discussion about the three pillars of white supremacy: slavery/capitalism, genocide/colonialism and orientalism/war.

What one takes away from this is if KFlint ignores the parts that (s)he wants, KFlint can the pretend that the discussion is about something else.

Settlers, in their bid to destroy local customs and cultures, outlawed the potlatch, an event associated with the gift economies of the Pacific indigenous communities like the Haida. This imposition of capitalist economy is not paralleled in any way by any indigenous conflict prior to settler arrival.

Slavery:

One pillar of white supremacy is the logic of slavery. This logic renders black people as inherently enslaveable—as nothing more than property. That is, in this logic of white supremacy, blackness becomes equated with slaveability.

This then becomes about racism. It centers around the concept that said slavery is a white racial construct. Since indigenous people of color also practiced slavery, the whole concept of white supremacy, in regards to slavery falls apart. As the issue is not about racism, it is about slavery.

Indigenous people did not practice slavery as a business that required a racist paradigm. Nor did they go around pretending that the indigenous race was somehow uplifting blacks and others into civilisation. There was no "red man's burden".

As I have argued elsewhere, the general premiss behind organising by “people of colour” as well as “ethnic studies” is that communities of colour share overlapping experiences of oppression around which they can compare and organise.

It should be noted as well that, said indigenous people of color, also took whites as slaves so slavery in this instance is a shared cultural construct, not a white racial construct.

Please provide evidence for this claim. Thank you.

Because of the above we can see that since both whites and said indigenous people of color practiced slavery, then both can share overlapping experiences of being oppressors and the oppressed, around which they can compare notes.

Neither being better, nor worse than the other, both sharing the same basic principal of slavery as a cultural practice and that said practice had nothing to do with racism.

And now we get to the part where we are supposed to pretend that the oppression of indigenous peoples by settlers is exactly the same as some minor and non-oppressive prejudice that in no way affected white cultures.

Did indigenous people create a residential school system where they kidnapped white kids and forced them to learn indigenous things in a systematic effort to erase settler cultures? If the answer is no, then we cannot say that whites and indigenous people shared overlapping experiences.

That's like saying that blacks being lynched and white people lynching have overlapping experiences because both people were targets of anger by the other.

Genocide:

A second pillar of white supremacy is the logic of genocide. This logic holds that indigenous peoples must disappear. In fact, they must always be disappearing, in order to enable non-indigenous peoples’ rightful claim to land. Through this logic of genocide, non-Native peoples then become the rightful inheritors of all that was indigenous—land, resources, indigenous spirituality, and culture. Genocide serves as the anchor of colonialism: it is what allows non-Native peoples to feel they can rightfully own indigenous peoples’ land. It is acceptable exclusively to possess land that is the home of indigenous peoples because indigenous peoples have disappeared.

This argument is as devoid as the one above and for the same reasons. Those being that indigenous peoples fought other indigenous peoples and engaged in genocide of those OTHER indigenous peoples.

So, logic holds that indigenous peoples must disappear. In fact, they must always be disappearing, in order to enable OTHER indigenous peoples rightful claim to land.

The above is called forceful occupation and is practiced by both the white colonial settlers and the indigenous peoples of North America.

Through this logic of genocide, OTHER indigenous peoples then become the rightful inheritors of all that was owned by OTHER indigenous tribes —land, resources, indigenous spirituality, and culture.

Genocide serves as the anchor of forceful occupation: it is what allows one tribe to feel they can rightfully own other tribes’ land.

It is acceptable exclusively to possess land that is the home of others because those others have been removed by forceful occupation.

So again, because of the above we can see that since both whites and said indigenous people of color practiced forceful occupation, then both can share overlapping experiences of being oppressors and the oppressed, around which they can compare notes.

Neither being better, nor worse than the other, both sharing the same basic principal of forceful occupation as a cultural practice and that said practice had nothing to do with racism.

Really?

Did indigenous people sign treaties with other indigenous people and then break those treaties? No.

Do indigenous people to this day, still keep those lands despite the glaring illegality of it? No.

Do indigenous people still pretend that settlers are all dead and don't exist as an excuse to continue occupying their land? No.

Do indigenous people still force white people off their land in this day and age? No.

And to get to the issue of genocide, there is no recorded case of indigenous people perpetrating genocide against settlers, yet we have evidence of mass graves of indigenous people who were supposed to be cared for by the settler gov't.

Most importantly, did indigenous people ever try and completely get rid of whole peoples in order to secure ownership of most of the land of North America? No. Pretending that thety somehow did something like that is nothing more than an excuse for ignoring what settlers did (and are still doing) to indigenous people in order to take away their land.

Orientalism:

A third pillar of white supremacy is the logic of orientalism. “Orientalism” was Edward Said’s term for the process of the West’s defining itself as a superior civilisation by constructing itself in opposition to an “exotic” but inferior “Orient”.4 (Here, I am using the term “orientalism” more broadly than to signify solely what has been historically named as the “orient” or “Asia”.) The logic of orientalism marks certain peoples or nations as inferior and deems them to be a constant threat to the wellbeing of empire. These peoples are still seen as “civilisations”—they are not property or the “disappeared”. However, they are imagined as permanent foreign threats to empire.

The same concept of war can also be seen within the tribal conflicts seen historically practiced by... wait for it... indigenous peoples of North America.

Please provide evidence for this claim. Thank you.

The entire paper is a practice in false dichotomy, the author continuously uses racial constructs and applies them to existing constructs and in doing so, tries and fails, to present an argument that shows that white people do the same things that other people do, but that whites do those things out of racism.

Since people of color also engage in all of the above, both to other people of color and to people who happen to be white, then those actions have nothing to do with 'white supremacy'.

No. This is just you trying to excuse settler colonialism by ignoring history and pretending (without evidence) that indigenous people did the "exact same thing" when in fact they did not. There is no false restriction of options.

These actions are intrinsic to the human condition and are shared by most cultures.

Trying to place those concepts on the door of racism, is rather quaint, at best.

I don't think this is true, and you have not shown it to be true. Even if it was, would it then excuse the theft of lands and systematic destruction of cultures that settler gov'ts have engaged in?

[U184]

In other words, if you ignore certain parts of the OP, you can shoehorn the discussion into your strawman.

Bullshit. Please provide evidence for this claim, do not make an unsupported accusations, if you can say I ignored something say what that it so it can be addressed.

This is just you trying to excuse settler colonialism by ignoring history and pretending (without evidence) that indigenous people did the "exact same thing" when in fact they did not.

Please provide evidence that they did not engage in slavery, genocide and war, thank you.

So, your best response to an in depth post is to build a straw-man and say I ignore things, without saying what those things are...

That is one way to debate, not an overly intelligent, balanced, respectful, informative or strong way though.

Why not deconstruct the actual points I made, refute them with logic and counter point, be elegant and descriptive without falling back on attacks and empty words that do not pin point what it is you actually disagree with.

Or, you can fall back on idiocy that is idiocy, because it says 'this is bad' but does not say why....

[Pants-of-dog]

Bullshit. Please provide evidence for this claim, do not make an unsupported accusations, if you can say I ignored something say what that it so it can be addressed.

The rest of my post did exactly that.

Please provide evidence that they did not engage in slavery, genocide and war, thank you.

So, your best response to an in depth post is to build a straw-man and say I ignore things, without saying what those things are...

That is one way to debate, not an overly intelligent, balanced, respectful, informative or strong way though.

Why not deconstruct the actual points I made, refute them with logic and counter point, be elegant and descriptive without falling back on attacks and empty words that do not pin point what it is you actually disagree with.

Or, you can fall back on idiocy that is idiocy, because it says 'this is bad' but does not say why....[/quote]

Like I said, I wrote a post outlining what you ignored.

Reread my last post and focus on the bits that you didn't quote in this post. Thanks.