Revieving ottoman empire = revieving monarchyfrycookofdoom wrote:He wants to revive the Ottoman Empire, thats about as radical as you can get.imperial wrote:He is conservative
and no one wants a monarchy
Revieving ottoman empire = revieving monarchyfrycookofdoom wrote:He wants to revive the Ottoman Empire, thats about as radical as you can get.imperial wrote:He is conservative
frycookofdoom wrote:He wants to revive the Ottoman Empire, thats about as radical as you can get.imperial wrote:He is conservative
Hes a good guy then.frycookofdoom wrote:He wants to revive the Ottoman Empire, thats about as radical as you can get.imperial wrote:He is conservative
Who cares what people want? Erdogan certainly doesnt. His ambitions to transfer more power to his role as president are part of his wider plan to reverse all the progress that has been made towards Republicanism in Turkey over the past 100 years.imperial wrote:Revieving ottoman empire = revieving monarchyfrycookofdoom wrote:He wants to revive the Ottoman Empire, thats about as radical as you can get.
and no one wants a monarchy
Yes he is actually,but western media shows him like satanshaolinstar wrote:Hes a good guy then.frycookofdoom wrote:He wants to revive the Ottoman Empire, thats about as radical as you can get.
imperial wrote:Yes he is actually,but western media shows him like satanshaolinstar wrote:Hes a good guy then.
They dont care about western problems. Aint nobody got time for dat :music:frycookofdoom wrote:Gee, isnt it strange how the media organizations of the democratic, civilized world portray him badly? Maybe if Western countries had press censorship and a culture of political intimidation like in Turkey things would be different. Guess we cant all be impartial in our views.imperial wrote:Yes he is actually,but western media shows him like satan
The Removal Act was signed by Jackson with him knowing from his cabinet that many Indians would be killed, he had intent of genocide, which is much the same when he tried to remove Seminoles by Florida but was denied by John Marshall and the supreme court to which he famously said "John Marshall has made his decision: now let him enforce it!"metis wrote:You people need to look up the definition of "genocide." Just because a great many people die in war doesn''t make it genocide. Germany lost nearly two million people in WW I but nobody says that the British committed genocide upon them. The Removal Act wasn''t designed to remove Indians from the face of the earth, but to transport them west of the Mississippi. This was an instance of eminent domain. The five tribes were given what is now the entire state of Oklahoma. The "Trail of Tears" was as much the fault of the Cherokee''s leader, John Ross, as anything because he kept farting around rejecting offers and telling his people to stay put when he should have been outfitting them for the move.
Can''t blame him, I haven''t done my research but iirc the land they were settled on belonged to them from a previous treaty, and John Marshal (supreme court judge) even ruled in favor of the indians but andrew idiot jackson didn''t care at all and challenged Marshal to "enforce" his decision. The history of Americans and Europeans not respecting their treaties with natives is very long.metis wrote:You people need to look up the definition of "genocide." Just because a great many people die in war doesn''t make it genocide. Germany lost nearly two million people in WW I but nobody says that the British committed genocide upon them. The Removal Act wasn''t designed to remove Indians from the face of the earth, but to transport them west of the Mississippi. This was an instance of eminent domain. The five tribes were given what is now the entire state of Oklahoma. The "Trail of Tears" was as much the fault of the Cherokee''s leader, John Ross, as anything because he kept farting around rejecting offers and telling his people to stay put when he should have been outfitting them for the move.
last time i cryed was because i stood on Lego
You do have a point, but what has to be considered in the differences in the societal and personal expectations that people had back then. Today, we are more likely to hold people accountable for their actions simply because we have less to fear than we did back in the mid 1800''s. Denying that the Indian removal act was not a an act of Genocide is ignorant. The act, in writing and direct affect, no so much intention, was very much like ones imposed by Nazi''s to move Jews into Ghettos in Warsaw and other places. While congress did not continue passing legislation to rid the states of Indians, like the Nazis did, the affects of the bill were still severe and horrible and shameful. Look at the American Indian community today: rampant crime and alcoholism. While we did not wipe the face of the earth of Indians, we did screw them for hundreds of years to come.metis wrote:You people need to look up the definition of "genocide." Just because a great many people die in war doesn''t make it genocide. Germany lost nearly two million people in WW I but nobody says that the British committed genocide upon them. The Removal Act wasn''t designed to remove Indians from the face of the earth, but to transport them west of the Mississippi. This was an instance of eminent domain. The five tribes were given what is now the entire state of Oklahoma. The "Trail of Tears" was as much the fault of the Cherokee''s leader, John Ross, as anything because he kept farting around rejecting offers and telling his people to stay put when he should have been outfitting them for the move.
The US culture if not government directly introduced crime and alcoholism onto Indian settlement population. Before colonists arrived alcohol was scarcely used among Indians, and was never as strong as European brews. The natives initially hated the introduction of European alcoholism into their society' this was one of the major reasons the natives sided with the French against the British ( the British pushed alcohol on the Indians as the French felt a duty to not enslave nor intoxicate natives).metis wrote:Today''s crime and alcoholism on Indian reservations isn''t the fault of the US government but of the reservation Indians themselves. I once spent a summer doing field research on and around Indian reservations and talked to several if the Indian farmers and ranchers there. Without exception they all said that if the alcoholics and drug users would get of their lazy butts and actually do something with their lives that they would do just fine. I also went to college with several Indians who said the same thing. The best thing that happened to the five tribes was to disband the reservation system in Oklahoma and split the land into individual allotments. My grandpa''s dad didn''t go get his allotment because he already had a thriving business but most of his cousins got theirs. My grandpa''s mother''s and father''s family names are represented 40 times on the Dawes rolls. One cousin married a daughter of Jackson McCurtain. Look him up if you want to know who he was.
lukas2223 wrote:The US culture if not government directly introduced crime and alcoholism onto Indian settlement population.metis wrote:
Native Americans and Alaskan Natives are five times more likely than other ethnicities in the United States to die of alcohol-related causes. Native Americans are predisposed to alcoholism because of differences in the way they metabolize alcohol. http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh301/3-4.htm
Alcohol beverages prior to White contact originated with the Mayan and the Aztec Nations and spread to the American Indians of the Southwest. Surprisingly, there are a number of accounts of alcohol use among other American Indians and Alaska Natives. Beverages were limited to wine and beer, and included: balche, pulque, and "haren a pitahaya" wines, tulpi beer and other beverages.
http://www.ucdenver.edu/academics/colle ... me%207/7(2)_Abbott_Use_of_Alcohol_1-13.pdf
That sounds very unbelievable.metis wrote:Personally, I can attest to the fact that Native Americans have problems handling alcohol. The stereotype of the "drunk Indian" has a strong basis in truth. I once picked a dead drunk Indian up off of the highway near Winslow and took him to the Navaho Reservation so that he wouldn''t get run over. When I finally found a place to drop him off, it happened to be a bar. I asked the girl at the counter if anyone knew the guy and she said, "Oh, that''s my Dad, was he passed out on the highway again?"
The Armenian genocide per se is of interest only to a very few, the topic of genocide in general is relevant to all.iwillspankyou wrote:how did this debate suddenly switch to american genocide of indians?? If you dont have something to say about the subject in hand - make your own tread!
The headline here is: The armenian genocide. You can make a post" did the native american genocide happen". Though I have alot of admiration for your knowlegde - dont switch this from a topic you dont know alot about - to another that you dometis wrote:The Armenian genocide per se is of interest only to a very few, the topic of genocide in general is relevant to all.iwillspankyou wrote:how did this debate suddenly switch to american genocide of indians?? If you dont have something to say about the subject in hand - make your own tread!
metis wrote:Tobacco was introduced to Europeans by Native Americans. Tobacco kills six million people a year, more than war.lukas2223 wrote:The US culture if not government directly introduced crime and alcoholism onto Indian settlement population.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs339/en/
Native?Americans are?more genetically predisposed to alcoholism though, this is a scientific fact.However, alcohol was not unknown to Pre-Columbian America.Native Americans and Alaskan Natives are five times more likely than other ethnicities in the United States to die of alcohol-related causes. Native Americans are predisposed to alcoholism because of differences in the way they metabolize alcohol. http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh301/3-4.htmPersonally, I can attest to the fact that Native Americans have problems handling alcohol. The stereotype of the "drunk Indian" has a strong basis in truth. I once?picked?a dead drunk Indian up off of the?highway near Winslow and took him to the Navaho Reservation so that he wouldnt get run over. When I finally found a place to drop him off, it happened to be a bar. I asked the girl at the counter if anyone knew the guy and she said,?"Oh, thats my Dad, was he passed out on the highway again?"Alcohol beverages prior to White contact originated with the Mayan and the Aztec Nations and spread to the American Indians of the Southwest. Surprisingly, there are a number of accounts of alcohol use among other American Indians and Alaska Natives. Beverages were limited to wine and beer, and included: balche, pulque, and "haren a pitahaya" wines, tulpi beer and other beverages.
http://www.ucdenver.edu/academics/colle ... me%207/7(2)_Abbott_Use_of_Alcohol_1-13.pdf
If everyone stuck strictly to the title topic, threads here would average about three posts. Remember that this isnt a technical, philosophy, history, political or science forum where people may wish threads to remain on topic for research purposes. The main purpose of an off topic section on a gaming forum is for cordial conversation. In conversations, the topic of discussion oftentimes changes. If you are really interested in a serious discussion of the Armenian genocide then I suggest you go here:iwillspankyou wrote:The headline here is: The armenian genocide. You can make a post" did the native american genocide happen". Though I have alot of admiration for your knowlegde - dont switch this from a topic you dont know alot about - to another that you dometis wrote:The Armenian genocide per se is of interest only to a very few, the topic of genocide in general is relevant to all.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests
Which top 10 players do you wish to see listed?
Which streams do you wish to see listed?