So you are saying all muslims are terrorists or extremists? Racist caught right HERE!Vilham wrote:
Racist caught right HERE! I note you say Muslims. Rather than Muslim terrorists or extremists. Well its nice to know your view that Muslims don't deserve rights.
Poll
Islamophobia: The New Anti-Semitism?
| Yes | 53% | 53% - 67 | ||||
| No | 46% | 46% - 59 | ||||
| Total: 126 | ||||||
Actually its not too late, there have been cases where Native Americans have brought "treaties" that were signed and they used it to get monetary compensations for their loses.sergeriver wrote:
Maybe coz it's too late for reparations. So, it's not a big deal admitting it anyway.rawls2 wrote:
Thats were your wrong. By now most Americans know what happened to the indians and I'd bet it be hard to find someone that would deny it.Fen321 wrote:
The kid was right though, winners write the history books. Pretty old saying actually.
I would think Indians don't really like US history books.
ex equo e bono!!
Last edited by Fen321 (2007-01-31 19:19:56)
Quite clearly im not. Bit of a hypocrite aren't you though, a self admitted racist.usmarine2007 wrote:
So you are saying all muslims are terrorists or extremists? Racist caught right HERE!Vilham wrote:
Racist caught right HERE! I note you say Muslims. Rather than Muslim terrorists or extremists. Well its nice to know your view that Muslims don't deserve rights.
Ummm...self admitted? Didn't know "self admitted" was the same as "vilham accused"...but whatever makes you happy.Vilham wrote:
Quite clearly im not. Bit of a hypocrite aren't you though, a self admitted racist.usmarine2007 wrote:
So you are saying all muslims are terrorists or extremists? Racist caught right HERE!Vilham wrote:
Racist caught right HERE! I note you say Muslims. Rather than Muslim terrorists or extremists. Well its nice to know your view that Muslims don't deserve rights.
O I apologise. You aren't quite a racist.
It was only most Muslims, because clearly more than 50% of Muslims are terrorist. So I guess that doesn't classify you are an Islamophobe or a racist.usmarine2007 wrote:
Who cares if someone hates muslims? I hate most muslims, or do not trust them for that matter. If you are going to preach acceptance, accept my view and don't be a hypocrite.
Condescend much? Settle down; you'll drop a lung, blow out your o-ring.topal63 wrote:
It's obviously a riddle to you...
The point is most COMMON SCHOOL History books to NOT cover the PLIGHT in depth what Native Americans suffered as an NATIVE population - being decimated & displaced by European transplants. That is what is missing from MOST text books... and it is certainly not a textbook TOLD from a NATIVE AMERICAN PERSPECTIVE.
The comment had NOTHING to do with what IS CONTAINED in textbooks - it is directed at what isn't in the textbooks. The comment is in reference to OMMISION of information not what is contained.
Do you understand why they would not like it YET?
There may be debate whether or NOT you can call it “genocide” or an utter “tragedy” - but as an event - its treatment within most textbooks - is more or less non-existent. And the older the textbook - the more minimal the treatment is of the Native Population.
Here is an analogy, for you, it would be like reading a history textbook about WWII with NO mention of the Holocaust; or an utter downplaying of it. Do you think Jews - would like that history textbook - or consider that truth / or the whole truth?
Do you understand the comment YET?
Too bad for the people with crappy textbooks then. How long has it been since you've been to a school then? The one's I've quite recently seen have always contained information about the forced relocations and things like the Trail of Tears. Most of the current high quality books provide this information, too. Hell, there are even supplemental packets that you have to read about it in addition to them. It sounds like you were in school when these "numbers games" were going on but I'm saying that you musn't think it is a widespread issue still.
its pretty horrifying to come to grips with that.....who ever said Christians didn't spread faith by the sword...no wait or is that Muslims now? Gee go figure
Trail of tears and forced relocations are the acts themselves, but the sociological impacts are never mentioned.DesertFox423 wrote:
Condescend much? Settle down; you'll drop a lung, blow out your o-ring.topal63 wrote:
It's obviously a riddle to you...
The point is most COMMON SCHOOL History books to NOT cover the PLIGHT in depth what Native Americans suffered as an NATIVE population - being decimated & displaced by European transplants. That is what is missing from MOST text books... and it is certainly not a textbook TOLD from a NATIVE AMERICAN PERSPECTIVE.
The comment had NOTHING to do with what IS CONTAINED in textbooks - it is directed at what isn't in the textbooks. The comment is in reference to OMMISION of information not what is contained.
Do you understand why they would not like it YET?
There may be debate whether or NOT you can call it “genocide” or an utter “tragedy” - but as an event - its treatment within most textbooks - is more or less non-existent. And the older the textbook - the more minimal the treatment is of the Native Population.
Here is an analogy, for you, it would be like reading a history textbook about WWII with NO mention of the Holocaust; or an utter downplaying of it. Do you think Jews - would like that history textbook - or consider that truth / or the whole truth?
Do you understand the comment YET?
Too bad for the people with crappy textbooks then. How long has it been since you've been to a school then? The one's I've quite recently seen have always contained information about the forced relocations and things like the Trail of Tears. Most of the current high quality books provide this information, too. Hell, there are even supplemental packets that you have to read about it in addition to them. It sounds like you were in school when these "numbers games" were going on but I'm saying that you musn't think it is a widespread issue still.
Not only that - the sociological perspective can't help but be Euro-centric. I wonder if it is possible to write a history book - without it being Euro-centric?Fen321 wrote:
Trail of tears and forced relocations are the acts themselves, but the sociological impacts are never mentioned.DesertFox423 wrote:
Condescend much? Settle down; you'll drop a lung, blow out your o-ring.topal63 wrote:
It's obviously a riddle to you...
The point is most COMMON SCHOOL History books to NOT cover the PLIGHT in depth what Native Americans suffered as an NATIVE population - being decimated & displaced by European transplants. That is what is missing from MOST text books... and it is certainly not a textbook TOLD from a NATIVE AMERICAN PERSPECTIVE.
The comment had NOTHING to do with what IS CONTAINED in textbooks - it is directed at what isn't in the textbooks. The comment is in reference to OMMISION of information not what is contained.
Do you understand why they would not like it YET?
There may be debate whether or NOT you can call it “genocide” or an utter “tragedy” - but as an event - its treatment within most textbooks - is more or less non-existent. And the older the textbook - the more minimal the treatment is of the Native Population.
Here is an analogy, for you, it would be like reading a history textbook about WWII with NO mention of the Holocaust; or an utter downplaying of it. Do you think Jews - would like that history textbook - or consider that truth / or the whole truth?
Do you understand the comment YET?
Too bad for the people with crappy textbooks then. How long has it been since you've been to a school then? The one's I've quite recently seen have always contained information about the forced relocations and things like the Trail of Tears. Most of the current high quality books provide this information, too. Hell, there are even supplemental packets that you have to read about it in addition to them. It sounds like you were in school when these "numbers games" were going on but I'm saying that you musn't think it is a widespread issue still.
You people are just drawing me in to going and searching through stacks of papers to find all this information in the book, aren't you?
The book of which I speak is over five years old. Your method, not necessarily your lesson, is condescending, and one of us is a lost cause.topal63 wrote:
Nope - I AM TRYING TO EDUCATE YOU - not upon history - but rather on what a loose expressive statement is. If you think that is condescending - so be it.DesertFox423 wrote:
You people are just drawing me in to going and searching through stacks of papers to find all this information in the book, aren't you?
Also if you find it ONE BOOK - it does not mean ALL or even MOST BOOKS are up to date - do you understand that - as well.
Oh i'm in trouble now!Vilham wrote:
Racist caught right HERE! I note you say Muslims. Rather than Muslim terrorists or extremists. Well its nice to know your view that Muslims don't deserve rights.rawls2 wrote:
The comment was directed at someone else. I agree with you that one was enough but when your fellow Brits want continue to appease to muslims I find that bulloks.paranoid101 wrote:
And that as to do with how we feel about the London bombing how?
Deny that early Americans decimated the Indian population. The history books I read never covered that up.Fen321 wrote:
Deny what?rawls2 wrote:
Thats were your wrong. By now most Americans know what happened to the indians and I'd bet it be hard to find someone that would deny it.Fen321 wrote:
The kid was right though, winners write the history books. Pretty old saying actually.
I would think Indians don't really like US history books.
Yours are all opinions. Fact is what I posted before, where many American personalities, called the bombings a crime against humanity. Was Truman your grandfather anyway? How come the attack on Pearl Harbor was a terrible act, even when the US knew about it, but the bombings are cool for you? Pls, I want an answer without the words BS, liberal, pal...lowing wrote:
OPINION is not fact.Vilham wrote:
You can say that all you like, it doesnt change the fact that you are naive to think that just because the winning side writes history it makes anything they do right. As to providing a counter to nuking japan = good, 2 people have already done that. So please if you are the adult you claim to be get a grip.lowing wrote:
Kinda odd, you calling me naive and crap when you yourself have never even got out on your own yet. Don't talk down to me again like you know something about life until you have actually lived it, outside a frickin classroom. Thanx
I asked where in the world, ( other than Osama Bin Laden Elementary ) is history being taught that the US is a terrorist state and that the attack on Japan was a terrorist act.
I acknowledge that history is written by the winners. What is it that is taught in Germany and Japan about the bombings, is it that it was terror attack or not??
Right. That is how I feel. If you are going to quote something like that, link the whole thread.Vilham wrote:
O I apologise. You aren't quite a racist.It was only most Muslims, because clearly more than 50% of Muslims are terrorist. So I guess that doesn't classify you are an Islamophobe or a racist.usmarine2007 wrote:
Who cares if someone hates muslims? I hate most muslims, or do not trust them for that matter. If you are going to preach acceptance, accept my view and don't be a hypocrite.
Anyway, both posts were examples of how you generalize and do not accept other peoples views also.
You are as free to say you hate most Muslims as Vilham is free to say you are Islamophobic. Do you really hate them, or you just don't trust them after 9/11?usmarine2007 wrote:
Right. That is how I feel. If you are going to quote something like that, link the whole thread.Vilham wrote:
O I apologise. You aren't quite a racist.It was only most Muslims, because clearly more than 50% of Muslims are terrorist. So I guess that doesn't classify you are an Islamophobe or a racist.usmarine2007 wrote:
Who cares if someone hates muslims? I hate most muslims, or do not trust them for that matter. If you are going to preach acceptance, accept my view and don't be a hypocrite.
Anyway, both posts were examples of how you generalize and do not accept other peoples views also.
I do not trust many people at all. That being said, I hate muslims who hate America and it's government, which IMO is most.sergeriver wrote:
You are as free to say you hate most Muslims as Vilham is free to say you are Islamophobic. Do you really hate them, or you just don't trust them after 9/11?
Did you feel that Muslims hated America when you were in Iraq or Africa? Don't you think that after 9/11 most of the media generalized about Muslims? Is it the same for you if they just hate Bush and his ME policies, but they don't hate America?usmarine2007 wrote:
I do not trust many people at all. That being said, I hate muslims who hate America and it's government, which IMO is most.sergeriver wrote:
You are as free to say you hate most Muslims as Vilham is free to say you are Islamophobic. Do you really hate them, or you just don't trust them after 9/11?
Hating the government is hating the people. The people are the government.sergeriver wrote:
Did you feel that Muslims hated America when you were in Iraq or Africa? Don't you think that after 9/11 most of the media generalized about Muslims? Is it the same for you if they just hate Bush and his ME policies, but they don't hate America?
Bush is not the people. I don't like him, like most of the World, like most of America. I don't hate America like most of the World and certainly Americans don't hate America. If hating a government is hating the people, most Americans would be hating themselves.usmarine2007 wrote:
Hating the government is hating the people. The people are the government.sergeriver wrote:
Did you feel that Muslims hated America when you were in Iraq or Africa? Don't you think that after 9/11 most of the media generalized about Muslims? Is it the same for you if they just hate Bush and his ME policies, but they don't hate America?
Very few Americans "hate" him IMO. They just talk a tough game.sergeriver wrote:
Bush is not the people. I don't like him, like most of the World, like most of America. I don't hate America like most of the World and certainly Americans don't hate America. If hating a government is hating the people, most Americans would be hating themselves.
Did you see the latest polls? http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htmusmarine2007 wrote:
Very few Americans "hate" him IMO. They just talk a tough game.sergeriver wrote:
Bush is not the people. I don't like him, like most of the World, like most of America. I don't hate America like most of the World and certainly Americans don't hate America. If hating a government is hating the people, most Americans would be hating themselves.
I didn't vote for him. But to say they hate him is a little too far IMO.sergeriver wrote:
Did you see the latest polls? http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htmusmarine2007 wrote:
Very few Americans "hate" him IMO. They just talk a tough game.sergeriver wrote:
Bush is not the people. I don't like him, like most of the World, like most of America. I don't hate America like most of the World and certainly Americans don't hate America. If hating a government is hating the people, most Americans would be hating themselves.
You used that word first. But hate, don't like, in this case it doesn't make the difference.usmarine2007 wrote:
I didn't vote for him. But to say they hate him is a little too far IMO.sergeriver wrote:
Did you see the latest polls? http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htmusmarine2007 wrote:
Very few Americans "hate" him IMO. They just talk a tough game.
We all know there is a difference. I hate Micheal Moore, which means I would piss on his grave. I don't like Bill O'Rly, but would not piss on his.sergeriver wrote:
You used that word first. But hate, don't like, in this case it doesn't make the difference.