What would Jesus think of what European Christians did to

>>1645082
Nothing, people who have never existed don't think much.

>>1645082
This >>1645088 is pretty much spot on.

Even considering that Jesus shouldn't have anything against it since they were all godless heathens anyway. They either had to be converted such with the Spainards or killed such as with the English.

>>1645093
Christ says "Love your neighbor and do good to those that hate you", the Natives were more spiritual than those who disobey "Thou shall not kill"

it is backwards, the Christians killing in the name of Christ were killing the Natives the same way Christ is hung on a cross. The assumed religious rulers are actually Satanic, dressed as light.

>>1645103
So? Christianity worships God and not just Jesus Christ. You can't just take all of his teaching and only his teachings to form the basis of Christianity.

>do good to those that hate you
What if it's the opposite of that's? What if the natives were good to the Europeans and and then they deserved to be hated and persecuted. There can't be such a one dimensional view of Christianity.

>>1645082
I enjoy bashing Americans as much as the next guy, but only 15k native Americans were killed by American settlers, smallpox did the rest.

Even if they had modern tech they wouldn't be able to kill the natives without disease.

>>1645114
the natives were actually very nice to the europeans . Then they were backstabbed.

The most abject brutality towards New World natives took place under Spanish & Portuguese authority. Even still, most Amerindians died of disease, not of deliberate genocide. The worst the American Government did was ethnically cleanse most of the country by corralling natives onto reservations (which at the time was actually a fairly enlightened way of dealing with the Native people since the alternative could have been to just enslave & murder them indiscriminately). Of course there were also the indian wars which often resulted in massacres of certain tribes, and the persistent disgraceful way the Government & settlers dealt with the native people through treaties, but it's still a far cry from genocide.

Ethnic Cleansing != genocide

>>1645121
i'm pretty sure there were multiple methods of approach by the natives since they were not remotely close to an unified civilization

>>1645082
>Kill each other for millennia
>one day white man comes along and joins the party
>white man makes the mistake of winning, must now feel bad about his actions

???

>>1645114
Christ is God's messenger, reverberating many common religious themed and re-established and reformed many themes as well. Killing in the name of God is not worship, but is an excuse to imperialism a nation using God as your excuse to cause harm.

The Natives were killed by the Europeans, not the other way around. We even use Indian names of States to identify US citizens who are not of that origin at all, think of how many people in ignorance identify themself with the name of the state that has zero part of their heritagr, for the names of states are from the Native tribes, whose land the Europeans stole.

>>1645114
do you even know the Ten Commandments>

>>1645137
>excuse to imperialism
Jesus himself was basically for all intents and purposes an imperialist himself. Going up to people who are working and taking away their time is literally just as bad as killing them. Jesus probably countless individual people a vast amount of many by distracting them from work.

>>1645082

He would think it was horrible, but he was a homeless beggar who never had any kids, so why do you care what he thinks.

Also the peak native population of us&canada was 7 million so your 100 million figure is bullshit

>>1645164
Christ does not start wars, no where does He teach disciples to kill others. Killing a body is worse than challenging others teachings. Christ taught spiritual work.

>>1645137
God has more messenger's than I have fingers, stop posturing over some religion you don't believe in or never read about

>>1645119
This.

More would have been killed in South America regardless.

>>1645179
>Preventing others from work and effectively stealing their money is good
Great logic *sarcasm*

File: giphy.gif (897KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

897KB, 200x200px

>>1645082
>muh 100 million

I would gladly kill another 100 millions

>>1645184
Christianity is not a religion, but is Christ's teaching about God and consciousness, which He does not exclusively hold as His own. This message of Christ is important to any person of any faith.

>>1645208
The message of Christ was corrupted by Paul, check out the Quran for the real deal dude.

>>1645082
>100 million
where did this person pull this retarded number from?

how could ANYONE know how many there were in america before the census

I wasn't aware smallbox is a Christian virus.

>>1645211
Paul's message is actually corrupted by the successors of religion that came after him, and Paul is killed for a reason. It is interesting to take note that Paul and Christ are killed for spreading a message, and it is the meaning of that message that is important. The same with the Quran, it is a message that teaches. Neither is exalted over the other, and self-analysis is more important than agreeing with the religious scholars opinions without any questions.

>>1645103
Christ is also a forgiving pussy. He should be more stern like his old self. Fuck those heathens good with the wrath of God, or maybe he did through the spaniards, since God has it all planned and knows it all.

Maybe God is ok with these events. He hasn't done much about it as far as we know.

>>1645082
>never forget the 100 trillion goy killed by the evil white men, goy!

>>1645229
Christ is a forgiving person, so each person has their own dealings to deal with. God gives free will to the Natives and the Spaniards, so they chose to kill the Natives. The Ancestor Spirits of the Natives tribes may have very well been often times forgiving, even to those who killed and raped them, and also claim authority over land that was God's and not theirs.

>>1645119
>>1645195
Are you guys justifying the treatment of natives because it could have been worse..

>>1645082
Didn't communists kill like 5 billion though? Surely that counts for something

>21 Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. 22 A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly.”23 Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.”24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”25 The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said.26 He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”27 “Yes it is, Lord,” she said. “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.”28 Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed at that moment.
Maybe something along the lines of
>you dun good

What would Santa think of the Holocaust

>>1645082
Well he was the one that killed them seeing as he was the one that chose not to protect them from plague. Presumably Jesus either approved or was ambivalent.

>>1645320
This is a history board. Just incase you didn't know.

>>1645137
>Maryland

Gotta love those Catholic natives

>>1645262

Saying that a certain number of people were "slaughtered by Europeans" when most of the number cited were killed by disease is dishonest. You might as well say 200 million Europeans were "slaughtered" by Asians when the Black Plague hit.

>>1645285
It'd be hard to get down the chimney.

>>1645353
I definitely concede disease did them in the most. Doesn't justify the trail of tears or umpteen billion broken treaties.

>>1645362

Neither of the people you quoted were saying "euros dindu nuffin dey wuz good boys"
You can probably find plenty of /pol/lacks that will, though.

>>1645362
>Trails of Tears

Probably the best thing that could have happened to Native Americans during the early 1800s.

What were the options? Completely wipe out the people or move them somewhere else. Jackson could have easily commanded the US military to slaughter on sight. In the late 1700s, that was the rule in some parts.

The Oklahoma territory then sprouted into many other territories across the nation.


No, wait....I'm sure Jackson was just a mean idiot and stupid and a dumb dumb, and Reddit probably knows more about early 19th century politics than the fucking President

>>1645082
They weren't killed in the name of God, unlike Muslims killing today.

>>1645164
>Jesus himself was basically for all intents and purposes an imperialist himself.

>Analyzing history through a modern lense
You are the reason leftist and relativism have permitted every aspect of education.

>>1645386
No but they pointed out that disease fucked them the most. In other words it seemed as though they were lessening the blame on those who did do shitty destructive things to the natives.

>>1645388
>they were lucky we marched them out of their homeland, we could have just gone straight genocide

Nice rationalizations. What's with your white guilt? You didn't march anyone anywhere.

>>1645421
I have none. I'm also sympathetic to the Indians. I also realize that the Trail of Tears was a necessity.

This was during a time before mass communications. Georgians or Alabamites could have easily massacred entire Indian villages, and no one in Washington DC would have heard about it.


By moving Indians to their own territory, it set a precedent of
A) This part is theirs and
B) If you attack them, your breaking the law

>>1645082
pls tell me you're trolling. no one can be this dumb.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas#Depopulation_from_disease

File: bait.png (65KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 625x626px

>>1645082

>>1645433
>a necessity

I imagine you suppose there's no way both groups could cohabitate. Which is a reasonable assumption.

Your assertation that the natives now had a place of their own and were protected by the government is dubious at best. The treaties Americans made with native groups were a joke, and taken as seriously as the Chinese take the ruling on the South China Sea.

No idea what you mean by protection. I highly doubt before or after that march were local authorities at all concerned about protection, or their general welfare whatsoever.

I also love how you keep saying the settlers could have done so much worse. Just so you know, that is a meaningless statement if you're trying to justify how the government mistreated Indians.

Jackson did not move them to protect them. You must be a product of the American educational system.

>>1645413

>No but they pointed out that disease fucked them the most.

It did.

> In other words it seemed as though they were lessening the blame on those who did do shitty destructive things to the natives.

That's your interpretation, I personally don't believe that saying disease killed more people suddenly means that the people Europeans did kill matter less. It lessens the blame to the extent that it distinguishes the death toll between disease and the direct action of colonists, which is a perfectly fair distinction. If, for example, Jim and Francis rob a bank, Jim shoots 2 guys and Francis shoots 10, saying "Jim shot 12 men" is false. Just by virtue of mentioning that fact doesn't inherently mean you're trying to reduce the blame for what happened, Jim still shot two people.

In regards to the disease being the European's fault, sure, they transmitted it, but not with the intent of genociding natives. Sometimes people whip out the "smallpox blankets" argument but as far as I can gather the intentional use of disease to kill natives is a meme and the only example of intentionally distributed smallpox blankets I found was when the British in fort Pitt were being beseiged by natives, and that was in 1763. In that one case, yes, and even then it was used to relieve a siege, not kill natives indiscriminately.

>>1645519
To add on to that blanket thing anon, it didn't even work. Not to mention people back then had very little understanding of diseases and the Americans using biological warfare on a group of people beyond simply using diseased corpses or mixing them with already infected people is a bit far fetched and under examination nobody has any evidence of it besides the one failed attempt at Fort Pitt you mentioned.

>>1645519
Ugh I conceded right away disease was the biggest issue. Not my point. That's your point to avoid admitting they were regularly screwed.

The rest of your rant is mental gymnastics trying to free any responsibility that the early settlers did shitty things to the natives. Who knows why you're wasting time doing that, on a history board no less.
The prez himself marched them out of the ancestoral homelands. But that's ok because... I'm not sure how you justify that being ethical. You 'tried'?

No the settlers didn't kill them all
Yes they did terrible things.
I have no idea how your example makes that ok. I am only saying they suffered what we would consider serious injustice today. Disagree?

>>1645119
Yeah, but most settling in North America happened after native society collapsed. Spain and Portugal did horrible things while Native society was still intact.

>>1645132
bruh
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iroquois
>The history of the Iroquois Confederacy goes back to its formation by the Peacemaker in 1142, bringing together five distinct nations in the southern Great Lakes area into "The Great League of Peace"

>>1645413
>>1645554
It's really simple:
>some people did 1 bad thing
>you claim they did 2 bad things
>Others point out they only did 1 bad thing and you can't refute this, but you don't accept it either

You're the only one engaging in mental gymnastics. That anon and I are arguing very specific things which are factually incorrect.
You want the settlers to take responsibility for every bad thing you ascribe to them, regardless of whether they did it or not and that's just incorrect.

It's scapegoating to relieve your own anger and what's more, scapegoating allows you and whoever else to ascribe responsibility for all society's ills on a select few "evil perpatrators" which does a great job of abnegating the responsibility you have for own little sins.

I don't like catastrophising and I don't like scapegoating because it's exactly what people use to justify their violent actions towards others.

>>1645132
Who the fuck mentioned feeling bad? Facts are facts, shitty things were done to the natives. It is what it is. You wanna feel white guilt? Go ahead, it's probably because had you been there you'd have gleefully participated in the destruction. You know it's wrong on some level but I bet it suits your worldview.

>>1645082
>Americans.

>genocide peaceful natives but let niggers breed and import them all across the world

Fuck America.

>>1645630
What gibberish are you spewing?
Settlers and their government forced them from their land. Surely violence or at least outright cruelty had to be used from time to time. Surly other crimes were committed against them by individuals. The government broke dozens of treaties.
Why are you insisting they were benevolent?
Who the fuck said i wanted anyone to take responsibility? They're all dead moron. Do you just read what you want to see? Why are facts so hard?

To make it simple. They were forced off their land. There were Indian slaves. There were a myriad of shitty things done to them. This is known.

You wanna feel guilty I guess. I sure as hell don't. I just am saying it is what it is. I'm not sure if you're the one who justified the trail of tears because 'it wasn't genocide'. If that's how you feel, fine. But it makes you a huge prick. It may have been the best option as the locals may have destroyed them. Doesn't make the march ethical.

Why are you denying shitty things were done to natives? All the treaties broken is enough evidence, pissing on their sovereignty like its nothing. I don't have news clippings ascribing a white settler cold bloodily killing a native. However we do have the march, and the documented opinions of Jackson, and a list of sham treaties.

Tell me about these 2 things, and the other 1 thing I'm so wrong about

>>1645082
For fuck's sake. 100 million DIED, mostly from diseases unintentionally introduced by the early settlers. A few ten thousands max were actually SLAUGHTERED, as in killed by violent means.

>>1645082

Yeah theres a lot of debate about how many people actually lived in the Americas, but I've never seen an estimate get anywhere close to 100 million.

In any case, most of those people werent actually killed by europeans, they died from disease.

>>1645719
Jesus wouldn't be happy with those few thousand. I don't know exactly at what number he draws the line though.
This thread is bait though, I'll agree to that.

File: 1337864535173.jpg (18KB, 287x326px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 287x326px

>>1645688
I'm actually a bit surprised by how dense and excitable you are.

First thing:
>15,000 Indians killed by white settlers
Second thing:
>millions more die from disease unintentionally introduced by white settlers

Now with this crucial information that was already held within the posts you replied to, and following the sequence of words and punctuation that forms sentences, even you should be able to understand what's been said.

>>1645615
>five distinct nations
Tribes. They weren't nations.

>>1645554
>I have no idea how your example makes that ok.

I literally said it doesn't make it ok.

>Why are you denying shitty things were done to natives?

I'm not.
I tried to spell this concept out in a way a five year old would understand with the analogy. I'll repeat it - Jim (the settlers) and Frank (the disease) go somewhere (America), Jim kills 2 people (natives), Frank kills 10 (natives). Jim is still a fucking murderer, the fact that somebody corrects you ascribing 12 dead men to Jim by saying Frank killed ten of them doesn't magically mean they're saying Jim isn't a murderer or that he didn't kill two people. How do you not understand this very, very simple idea? This concept isn't mental gymnastics, it's basically a mental walk in the park, the fact that you struggle so hard to grasp it makes me worried for you.

You can make the argument that because they transmitted the disease, the smallpox deaths are "the settlers' fault" but you can't just go and say that's genocide, there was no intent to spread disease, the disease was in no way manufactured and it was only weaponized in a specific circumstance that didn't really do much.

>>1645788

And also, just to be clear, I'm not accusing you of calling the disease genocide, I said it more as an afterthought. The importance of the statement can be condensed into the statement "Saying that disease killed more natives is not excusing the settlers for their actions, nobody said that, you just read into it that way."

>>1645082
Who's got that video where a Union general and a Lakota chieftain sit down to talk and the general says the Lakota are no better than the Americans when it comes to conquering shit?

>>1645738
Why are you spitting out numbers I never disputed? How are YOU calling ME dense..
I never disputed this. Can you seriously not read? First post I conceded disease fucked them by far the hardest.

How does this justify the treatment of the natives? Notice how the thread is what would Jesus think, encouraging the discussion to center around ethics. You think cause it was mostly disease, settlers and their govt of the time did nothing wrong. I have to keep repeating myself apparently: They were force marched off their lands, killing many. They were given treaties that were worthless. And surely there was small scale violence. Jesus would not like. Kinda obvious.

Just because your stupid ass wants to keep taking about disease like that faggot Jered Diamond, has nothing to do with other injustices they experienced.

I can't believe you don't understand this. I'm guessing it doesn't fit your narrative of 'whitey didn't do nuffin' or you're trolling in a stupid fashion.

>>1645870
>injustice
>especially regarding the Plains and Southwestern Tribes
Nope.

>>1645870
>You think cause it was mostly disease, settlers and their govt of the time did nothing wrong.

You keep putting these words in people's mouths because you're apparently so retarded you can still totally have the point fly over your head, because you INSIST on inferring things when people are giving you the most explicit statements they feasibly can.

This entire argument stemmed from you saying this >>1645262 where you were very quickly told "no that's not what they're saying" but you keep INSISTING that's what everyone is telling you. Nobody is saying "whitey dindu nuffin", they're disputing you saying
> In other words it seemed as though they were lessening the blame on those who did do shitty destructive things to the natives.

Because that isn't what anybody is saying. Nobody said "whitey dindu nuffin it was all disease"

Get that through your head.

Nobody. Nobody in this entire discussion chain has at any point made any effort to dispute broken treaties, the trail of tears, or white abuse of natives. I'll say it again.

NOBODY.
SAID.
THAT.

>>1645788
How do you think that example applies at all? It seems like you can't/won't read what I keep saying and you don't want white people accused of any misdeeds. Disease killed them all, the end. That's your spin. I just said they experienced many injustices. Your example is mind numbingly stupid because:

I've said a hundred times disease killed harmed them far more than settlers. I conceded that first post, it was an opinion I held to begin with. Prove me wrong, I know exactly what I've been saying. Maybe you got a post mixed up that wasn't me.
How do you not understand I know disease killed most of them, yet I also know they suffered injustices at the hand of settlers and their government? This is outstandingly simple.

I can't explain that simpler. Seriously I'm not worried for you cause youre a lost cause on a few levels.

Disease killed 90% more of them.
Settlers did shitty shit and their government facilitated it. I did not bring up blankets. Clearly did not bring up genocide. I brought up forced removal from their homelands. I brought up broken treaties. Natives died through these policies. Surely some were outright murdered, but I've conceded that number is small.

The fact that this is beyond you is indicative of white guilt I guess. Why you can't acknowledge they suffered crimes, why you can't read my simple words... I have no idea but I've repeated myself 10 times. You cannot be this stupid and turn on a computer. Apparently you want to set a narrative that forgets all the wrongs the settlers/govt did to the natives, and focuses on smallpox as the reason they were all but exterminated. And that's correct, disease killed the majority of them. Doesn't change what I said.

Did the native civilization create anything of value that was worth preserving?
They were shitty nomad barbarians, nobody cares.

>>1645875
Good argument dipshit. Yeah I heard the trail of tears was just like marti gras.
My general point is that many different natives experienced injustice. No one in the academic community would give it a second thought. The US govt itself has admitted as much

>>1645917
>trail of tears
>Plains tribes
Fucking wew. You are way out of your element.

>>1645916
http://www.mexica-movement.org/ACCOMPLISHMENTS.htm

>>1645886
Sure man. I just keep saying disease killed most of them but the settlers and their govt screwed them. And people are arguing with that. Mostly by calling me dumb. So you do the math.

How in the fuck do you know what another pol/ack is trying to say? I suggest you reread the thread. My only assertion is injustices were done, that the whole chapter was ethically dubious. People keep arguing with me. So again do the math. What does everyone disagree with that I said? History is meant to encompass as much as we can know, I just wanted to point out the settlers did shitty things, that Jesus wouldn't like, per the thread question. And I got a million Yous. This isn't rocket science.

Tell me about these explicit statements. That disease killed the majority. Yes I know, I have to keep reiterating that I know that. I agree with that. If you look at the thread, shit you surely said, you would emphasize that disease killed most of them. I point out settlers didn't help and did unchristian like things and a shit storm erupts.
I can't explain that. If you're really right, I cannot believe this thread is still active because we all agree. Apparently you all don't want to hear about the atrocities the settlers did, and want to focus on disease. Which is benign as far as Jesus is concerned. Do you know the thread question even?

Nice of you to get your jimmies rustled though.

>>1645920
Yeah they ended up in Oklahoma. Marched through the south east

Jesus Christ dumbass. Nice post

>>1645782
The term nation is applicable as well, whether you like it or not.

See: 'Iroquois Diplomacy on the Early American Frontier' by Timothy Shannon; 'First Peoples' by Colin Calloway; or any other authoritative source covering the Iroquois.

>>1645949
The Southeastern Tribes, whether they ended up in Oklahoma or not, were not Plains Indians. Again, you're out of your element. Stop posting.

>>1645982
>fail to meet basic criteria of a nation
>magically a nation because you say
That's not how it works. Academics refer to them as nations as a form of uplift, but tribes are not nations. They never have been and they never will be. In fact, every political scientist will tell you this.

File: 140707-pope-francis-vatican-827a_0d92620f0558de5c32c0225e297942b6.jpg (219KB, 2500x1664px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 2500x1664px

He wouldn't have approved of enslaving and stealing from the native population.

He would, however, have approved of going to the new lands and spreading Christianity.

"Therefore go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey all that I have commanded you."

There will never be any apology for the spread of Christianity, and whatever "destruction of culture" it might have caused. It is what we as Christians are called to do. When talking about 'culture,' remember, the spreading of the faith is part of OUR culture. Who are you, who is anyone, to criticize it?

>>1645990
I never fucking called the plains Indians you fuck. I know the Cherokee are from Georgia. I know they were marched west.

More importantly how are you contributing to the thread? You think you caught me? Oh shucks I'm just a Jim Bob. Get out storm fag. You probably googled the trail of tears before posting

>>1645990
Also you don't know the definition of nation. Google it.
Then go back to your safe space.

>>1645948
he makes a good point senpai

>>1645990
>tribes are not nations. They never have been and they never will be.
>what is tribal sovereignty
>what are domestic dependent nations
>b-but political science!

I'm afraid you're out of your element as well.

>>1645948
>My only assertion is injustices were done

No, you repeatedly made the assertion that people were denying that, when they weren't. That's what people were arguing with you over.

It rustles my jimmies because people have been very, very clear with you and then you turn around and make the same stupid fucking accusation that they're just trying to justify settler actions when their entire post is specifically about telling you that's not what they're saying. You keep putting words in people's mouth and by some miracle totally missing the point. See >>1645910 where you say my example doesn't count and follow up with
>Disease killed them all, the end

Which is EXACTLY NOT what my example stated. My example said the OPPOSITE. It OUTRIGHT ACKNOWLEDGED disease did not kill them all. I'm putting it IN CAPS so that you UNDERSTAND THE WORDS I AM SAYING.
The example OUTRIGHT STATED something that CONTRADICTS "disease killed them all" EXPLICITLY.

You're a fucking retard. You're just totally fixated on shoving words in people's mouth.

>>1645998
>specifically refer to Plains Indians and Southwestern tribes
>you bring up the trail of tears as if it's relevant
Literally fuck off.

>>1646004
>A nation (from Latin: natio, "people, tribe, kin, genus, class, flock") is a large group or collective of people with common characteristics attributed to them - including language, traditions, mores (customs), habitus (habits), and ethnicity. A nation, by comparison, is more impersonal, abstract, and overtly political than an ethnic group. It is a cultural-political community that has become conscious of its autonomy, unity, and particular interests.[1]
>Stalin's Marxism and the National Question (1913) declares that "a nation is not a racial or tribal, but a historically constituted community of people;" "a nation is not a casual or ephemeral conglomeration, but a stable community of people"; "a nation is formed only as a result of lengthy and systematic intercourse, as a result of people living together generation after generation"; and, in its entirety: "a nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture." [2]
Tribes are not nations.

>>1646006
The tribes BECAME nations. They were not nations in the period were are discussing and didn't become nations until well afterward.

>>1645992
Hey look stormfags, an actual answer to the thread question.

Good post

>>1646012
>They were not nations in the period were are discussing and didn't become nations until well afterward

The fact that U.S. government entered into formal treaties with Indian peoples as they would with any other nation speaks otherwise.

Also

>Cheroke Nation v. Georgia
>Chief Justice John Marshall recognizes them as domestic dependent nations
>They were not nations in the period were are discussing
>1831
>Trail of Tears not until 1838

They were nations; you just like to deny it, like Andrew Jackson did.

>>1646040
>referred to as nations for legal purposes is the same thing as them being a nation
Again, that's not how it works. You can call anything a nation. That doesn't make it so.

>>1646047
>>1646040
Also they were referencing them as a state, which also does not necessarily denote nationhood.

>>1645082
>getting defeated by blankets
LOL

>>1646009
Never asserted anyone denied it. I may have generalized on the fact all the pol/acks wanted to focus on disease and continually tell me about it, right after I acknowledged it. Welcome to the Internet. Everyone wanted to focus on the disease. Which wasn't the idea of the thread. Talking about the disease literally takes focus from the dubious ethics of the settlers/govt of the time. You're the type of person who thinks black lives matter means their lives matter more than others.
Sorry you're a child and this hurts so bad. Welcome to earth. Congratulations for understanding with such depth the plight of the native Americans.

I've been strawmaned a thousand times in this thread. The thread question is clear. Please be more specific in your criticisms. I don't doubt I used hyperbole in a post up there. Why this is so important is beyond me. I've spent the whole thread stating simple facts. Pol/acks or whoever wanted to stress it was mostly disease seemed intent on shit flinging when I pointed out injustices were done against the natives.

Yet you all, especially you, are irate that I keep reiterating disease killed most of the people BUT they suffered in other ways. Disease has nothing to do with ethics, whereas the treatment of the natives does.

really shouldn't take this so personally. The thread didn't focus on the question, which apparently makes some uncomfortable.

Jesus Christ it's simple. I'm so sorry you feel like I shoved words in your mouth. On an anon image board. First world problem dude.

Again I believe you have a deep understanding of their plight. Fucking happy?

>>1646012
Someone else replied to you to correct your pleb understanding of nation

As far as plains Indians and whatever gotcha crap your spewing, you missed the mark entirely. This thread isn't even about the Cherokee moving from Georgia. This is about, supposed to be about, the ethics of how the natives were treated by settlers and their representive government.

12 year old gotcha shit. Your the type of faggot that thinks someone makes a typo and you "win" the "argument"

>>1646040
There's a couple idiots here who in no way will understand the difference between a nation and a nation state. It's futile senpai

>>1646052
Why don't you actually try and offer up some arguments/evidence that Indian nations were/are actually not nations and explain your criteria of "nationhood" instead of just saying other people are wrong.

>>1646083
::crickets::

File: Bullshit Detector.gif (55KB, 400x236px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 400x236px

>>1645082

>Natives die out from disease
>Blame evil Christian gas-chambers

File: s655673610523816213_p122_i19_w864.jpg (123KB, 864x866px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 864x866px

>>1645082
"Night Whisper." Painting by Kirby Sattler (1950-).

>>1646063
>I've spent the whole thread stating simple facts.

So has everybody else, the point is you're repeatedly inferring meaning, and then apparently exaggerating it by your own admission, while refusing to actually acknowledge the substance of their post (and, in fact, on several occasions accusing them of saying the opposite of what their post states).

I'm calling you stupid, not taking it personally, acting condescending doesn't make you less stupid. I'm going to break it down one more time, I'm not optimistic.

>Yet you all, especially you, are irate that I keep reiterating disease killed most of the people BUT they suffered in other ways.

I'm not irate that you're stating they suffered in other ways but that you think people are disagreeing. This discussion started, I'll remind you, because of this post:

>>1645262

Which I replied answering you question with "no." and that nobody made that argument, then the rest of the shitshow was trying to hammer this simple concept into your head while you repeatedly said shit like this:

>In other words it seemed as though they were lessening the blame on those who did do shitty destructive things to the natives.

No, that isn't what they said.

>That's your point to avoid admitting they were regularly screwed.

No, that isn't what I said, and I admitted that they were regularly screwed. Outright. I also outright said it wasn't ok what they did. Like, in plain English, at the start of my post. >>1645788

You reply with this, where you read my example where I outright agreed white people killed people and in very simple terms explained to you what people were correcting you about, then you inferred the opposite of the statement and delude yourself to think I said "disease killed them all". Then you said:

>How does this justify the treatment of the natives?

It doesn't. Nobody said it does.

>You think cause it was mostly disease, settlers and their govt of the time did nothing wrong.

No, nobody said that.

File: Cannibal Butchers.gif (15KB, 302x285px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 302x285px

>wage total war with one another for centuries, killing and eating your enemy's children solely because he's on land that you want
>try to do the same to the white colonists
>get annihilated
>BAWWWWWWWWWWW MUH POOR DESTROYED PEOPLES, GIB RESERVATIONS PLEASE

Most tribes didn't even have a word for "Genocide", because to them "Genocide" and "War" were completely indistinguishable concepts.
When Native American tribes went to war, they killed their opponents to the last man. That usually included slitting the throats of their infants.

Go back to drinkem that fire-water, Shitposts-with-Cheeto-stains.

>>1646115
>Native Americans was one culture!
Ayy lmao.

>>1646123

>Only MOST native-americans killed and ate people! Not ALL of them!

Whoopty friggen' do. Let's give them a medal.

Also, not ALL Christians waged war with native-americans.
I guess OP's argument is moot then.

>>1646115
>Most tribes didn't even have a word for "Genocide", because to them "Genocide" and "War" were completely indistinguishable concepts.

The word in English is like a hundred years old.

>>1646126
Cannibalism was memed only in the Carib. Ayy lmao.

>>1646130
Less than that
>In 1944, a Polish-Jewish lawyer named Raphael Lemkin created the term genocide to describe policies of systematic murder, in particular those being carried out by the Nazis, and the word was quickly adopted by many in the international community.

File: It's Like Poetry.jpg (41KB, 480x352px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 480x352px

>OP posts an image that includes the phrase "Sorry if you can't handle facts."
>Proceeds to prove that he can't handle facts.

>>1646153
>Literally the people whom Europeans did not meet.
That shit is like saying Alexander's Greeks fought the Muslims because they were in the middle east.

>>1646132
>Cannibalism was memed only in the Carib.

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20000907&slug=4041058

And this is just the tip of the ice-berg, lel.

>>1646104
Jesus Christ you think your the only poster. Are you an only child? Why so butthurt. Why did I have to tell you or whoever twenty times I know disease killed most of the natives?

If no one was disagreeing with me I sure don't know why I got so many angry Yous. You realize there's people like >>1646100

Seriously you're acting like you're the only poster. You're the idiot, if we agree why the fuck did you keep arguing? You spaz because you can't understand that this thread was about the morality of the native/settler relationship. And every second wasted on this stupid shit is time we could have spent on ethics, which apparently makes some in this thread uncomfortable.

Like if we really agree, why did you keep posting. What were we arguing about? I probably kept repeating I know disease killed most of them BUT. You could have just shut up, since you agree with what I've been saying. Again I refer you to >>1646100 since you think you're on the same page with the 7 people I'm arguing with.

It's your dumbass fault for continuing. You're that butt hurt that I hyperboled your argument? Probably on accident, as I'm replying to more than just you. Like we apparently agree yet you keep barking. Put your ego down and let this go.
The fact of the matter is even if we all agree with my assertion- disease killed the majority but the settlers did plenty immoral things- why the fuck do I have to keep repeating myself? Why are we talking about disease instead of the ethical aspects of their treatment?

I'm so sorry I characterized your anon post wrong

Did the hyperbole, probably meant for someone else, hurt that bad? You seem to gloss over the fact that there are blatant racists in thread

Jesus Christ dude

>>1645103
>the Natives were more spiritual than those who disobey "Thou shall not kill"
Are you implying that Amerindians didn't kill? Are you implying that a lot of Amerindians didn't kill a LOT?

File: 1404929125213.gif (2MB, 260x192px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 260x192px

>>1646161

>lashing out like an aspie because I pointed out every case of you being a jackass and putting words in people's mouths

>Why did I have to tell you or whoever twenty times I know disease killed most of the natives?

As I clearly stated repeatedly, I wasn't saying you were denying it, you dipshit. The discussion was YOU saying people denied white actions that they didn't, they were merely drawing attention to facts which you inferred meaning into. I walked you through the entire argument, if you still haven't figured it out there's no helping you.

>start saying you were arguing with other people you never replied to
>Seriously you're acting like you're the only poster.

In the post I just provided I largely drew attention to posts where you replied to me and (badly) attempted to address what I said, usually drastically misunderstanding what I said and then creating a strawman to argue with instead. Just so you know, people tend to assume posts where you reply to them are addressing them.

>LOL UR SO MAD
>LOL U BIG BABY

You sound very calm now yourself. I admit that you're fucking annoying because you have extreme difficulty comprehending very simple concepts, though, so if you wanna call me butthurt that's a win for you. You're pretty annoying.

>It's your dumbass fault for continuing.

It takes two to tango, baby.

>You seem to gloss over the fact that there are blatant racists in thread

Then reply to them, not me, you fucking asshat.

>>1645467 (you)

>>1646178
Jesus Christ guy
Scroll up and look for the other people I argued with
Read the fucking thread shit.

You're right, this thread wasn't intended to be about the ethical treatment of the natives. You're right, I was arguing with myself for hours.

Also I now know you speak for everyone who was arguing with me.
>>1645916
There you stupid faggot. Now you'll understand there's other people here

You keep saying we agree, and asserting I kept putting words in your mouth. Yeah I doubt that. I get you acknowledged the plight of the native. Are you happy yet? .

Also it's clear your not intelligent enough to be so condescending. I can tell you think you're a superior human being. That's nice.

If I used a line of hyperbole in a post to you, why don't you put on your big boy pants and grow up. I said 20 times to you and others, yes disease killed most of them but... You agree with this, yet keep going and going aimlessly. You're reduced to ad hominems, and they're not even good banter.

Hey guy, who is really smart. I understand you think all I've been doing is twisting words around. That's nice. Good for you. Scroll up and shatter that illusion.
If you don't understand that the fact I had to continuously reiterate myself about the disease I don't know what to tell you. We agree, you and me, not me and several other posters, yet you can't drop it.

And how is it so confusing that maybe I thought one of your posts was related to another and responsed appropriately. I understand we agree. Tenth time. How many times do I have to say it? Somehow you keep going.

Do you not understand some posters think not only was the treatment not immoral but justified?


All because a few lines mischaracterized your anon post. Which set you off. So fucking sorry.

The proof you gave me that I misread you is weak, and barely qualifies as a strawman.

Take your massive ego and soothe it.

>>1646178
Is this you
>>1645433
>This was during a time before mass communications. Georgians or Alabamites could have easily massacred entire Indian villages, and no one in Washington DC would have heard about it.

>By moving Indians to their own territory, it set a precedent of
A) This part is theirs and
B) If you attack them, your breaking the law

I think it is.

>>1645630
Tell me what the two things are. You wanna break this down, let's do it.

>>1645353
Shit like this, where you gloss over actual injustice done by humans, and turn the discussion to disease. Utterly retarded given the thread question.

>>1645114
>What if the natives were good to the Europeans and and then they deserved to be hated and persecuted
Are you like, legitimately autistic?

>>1645082
>What would Jesus think of what European Christians did to Native Americans?
That Native Americans should have turned the other cheek.

>>1646178

>>1645119

This is definatly you. Notice how you used the phrase only 15k. I can nitpick too, and that's some serious minimizing in a thread where we consider the opinion of Jesus.

>I enjoy bashing Americans as much as the next guy, but only 15k native Americans were killed by American settlers, smallpox did the rest.

So if I put the words in your mouth explicitly that small pox killed them all (I didn't), you put the words together to say settlers 'only' killed 15k. Probably a conservative number. Also very unchrist like.
We're arguing just to argue. Take it easy

>>1646296
>remember those 100 quadrillion you slaughtered goy
>actually disease killed most of them
> oy vey how dare you talk about disease

Piss off Chief Sore Bottom

>>1645860
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1y_0NfhF9c

>>1646337
Not even close.
Read the thread question
Assuming that smallpox wasn't weaponized, it's a pointless tangent.

If it was weaponized, its only going to make Jesus sadder. Evidence that blankets were purposely used as weapons is sketchy.

Read the thread question. We're talking about the morality of the settler/native relationship. Not diseases, although that's where the thread went, of course.

File: image.jpg (29KB, 357x411px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 357x411px

>>1645388

>trail of tears

>the best thing

File: image.jpg (31KB, 398x600px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 398x600px

>>1645648

>>1646349
I understand the thread question, but I'm talking about OP's picture.

100 million weren't slaughtered, (not in the least because there weren't that much) because most of them died of disease. I'm just pointing out historical inaccuracy

>>1646365
Oh yeah it's bait. Effective as the whole thread was about disease as opposed to a discussion on ethics.

File: image.jpg (90KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 500x500px

>>1646337

>goy

>OY vey

File: image.jpg (65KB, 499x486px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 499x486px

>>1646365

>>1645130
as a Brazilian, I find it naive that you guys refer to native massacre in the past tense. Here in Brazil it is still happening, mates. Rural landlords, drug dealers that cross brazilian borders smuggling god knows what into and out of here, the fucking government is killing natives to construct hydroelectric power plants. It's shit.

>>1645082
>Christians
You mean proddies?

Indians were gay. Glad they're gone and their "deep, spiritual" culture of yelling, scalping, and dancing around fire is no more

File: Screenshot_31.png (36KB, 371x268px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 371x268px

>>1646281

Two swings, two misses.

>>1645114
Nope. Only jews read ot. Christians follow Christ

>>1645082
religious guilt and white guilt are spooks. why should you care for what the people of your same race or religion did. it isn't going to affect anything i do

>>1645082
Is this question aimed at the /pol/babbies on this board? If so, I'll say it for them:

>White European Christians are good boys who dindu nuffin any account of them being violent is just Marxist revisionist propaganda and Jewish lies waaah waaah

>>1647834
They got scalping from the French

>>1645132

This argument literally never made sense to me

>the Indians waged war, therefore us invading their homeland and killing off a shitload of them is okay!

Nah nigga, neither action is okay, one just happens to be worse than the other you fucking dipshit.

>>1645266

kek

>>1645082
It was mostly through disease but I'll bite.

He would've thought it deplorable.

>>1649031
>the Indians waged war, therefore us invading their homeland and killing off a shitload of them is okay!
Okay, I'm not him and don't really care about this discussion but..

a) google strawman.
b) You don't see the weeny contradiction in your post? "indians waged war" "their homeland" Nah nigga. By your retarded standards, that ain't their homeland if they weren't the first fucking humans who arrived there <-- Is literally the point of "indians waged war". It is to shut up those people who believe that America isn't the homeland of many Europeans and those who think Americas were somehow peaceful and perfect before Europeans.

>>1645082
>slaughtered
Kek, believe me if America wanted the natives gone they would be gone

but thats wrong

90% of them were killed by disease which was unintentionally spread

A smaller percentage were killed by disease related things, like famine, starvation, tribe dysfunction etc

An even smaller percentage were killed by fighting with Europeans

There isnt even evidence which suggests there were 100 million natives in America/Canada to begin with

>>1645082
>100 million

>>1645082
>its only slaughter if you are a minority

i hate this meme, the europeans actually were peaceful in most areas they settled in
hell even the russians were for a time

>>1645082
>be mainly hunter gatherers
>sustain a population of 100 million
W E W

>>1645782
Their lands were larger than those of many Balkan nations

>>1645362
Those Natives wouldn't stop attacking their neighbors. Thus, tears on the trail.
Better future for them than a final option.

>>1645103
'Thou shalt not kill' refers to mrder, I'm quite sure God sanctioned and encouraged many wars in the old testament, especially after He issued the commandments.

>>1645082
Christ cares for the sufferings of all human beings

>>1650048
A large percentage of the native population lived in mesoamerica and the andes, in a civilized or semi- civilized state, the rest of the americas was sparsely populated.

>>1645093
>>1645088
I sometimes wonder if the Christian persecution is going to be justified and put into motion because of people like this who wave the Christian flag.

Unless these are stormfront's property...

>>1645103
This

True men of God would have been patient and fair with the Native American. But that's not what the world is about. It's about money and land and exploitation. The Native American met the blood thirsty, greedy, and self righteous, not men of God.

>>1652864
>The Native American met the blood thirsty, greedy, and self righteous, not men of God.
Are you talking about the other Natives?