Schools Are Requiring Kindergarteners To Recite a 'Land Acknowledgment' That They 'Occupy' Stolen Land

yes it would. one look at canada and australia says otherwise, anglo saxons run the government.

Yeah, it means a violent corrupt third world shithole. Look at Mexico, it's the Spaniards that rule. Js want to use invaders to overthrow the country so they can divide and rule.



 

Perhaps, but guess who OWNS the government?

HORSESHIT. They rule YOU but they will NEVER rule us. They OWN you. You are their slaves

Corrupt Indian leaders sold their land to the US for personal profit in many cases.

factoid - an assumption or speculation that is reported and repeated so often that it becomes accepted as fact. example, Globe Sun Cult spinning water ball Earth in a 'space vacuum theory.

Lay off the pipe

Not in upstate NY. We beat their ass they pull any out of line BS

lol what a stupid racist you are. you are GLP's resident Afrocentric buffoon. Whites survived in the most inhospitable places on the planet. Nobody gave a shit about North America, or Australia until whites developed it. The Chinese and Indians (India) didn't colonize Australia because they respected the territorial claims of Aboriginals, they didn't because the land was shit. Same with North America and South Africa.

 
 

 

Like you did at Akwesasne in 87?

We kicked your ass out.

If this land is shit you are welcome to pack your bags and go back to Europe. I'm sure you'll find things better there, thats why you came here in the first place wasnt it?

The irony is palpable.

I made a simple statement of indisputable scientific fact.

"racist" is not neccesarilly a bad thing, I personally believe even mixed race hienz 57 mutts are racist, though they might not recognize it.

Being racist means you recognize the reality that there are significant differences between races.

It doesnt become a bad thing until you start thinking you are superior in the eyes of God, or have some divine right "manifest destiny" to predate upon others.

"Right of Conquest" is a violation of international law. It was instituted after Hitler invaded Eastern Europe and the USSR.

You apparently think civilizations are equal and that one cannot be superior to another. That is where you are wrong.
That means ISIS cannot be deemed worse than Turkey or that WW2 Japan was superior to China, justifying mass murder.

The non-white societies are less advanced in their concepts of "rights" as evidenced by their crimes. The notion that everything that has been done by whites is okay is absurd and no reasonable person claims that. Every reasonable person would agree that the Western concept of respecting the rights of individual is superior though.

Your reasoning is that Western Civilization is inferior to primitive savagery and that Imperial Japan had the right to kill millions of Chinese.

White people are not physically adapted to life on this planet. All of the other races are.


lol. irony. agreed.

"Right of Conquest" is a violation of international law. It was instituted after Hitler invaded Eastern Europe and the USSR.

You apparently think civilizations are equal and that one cannot be superior to another. That is where you are wrong.
That means ISIS cannot be deemed worse than Turkey or that WW2 Japan was superior to China, justifying mass murder.

The non-white societies are less advanced in their concepts of "rights" as evidenced by their crimes. The notion that everything that has been done by whites is okay is absurd and no reasonable person claims that. Every reasonable person would agree that the Western concept of respecting the rights of individual is superior though.

Your reasoning is that Western Civilization is inferior to primitive savagery and that Imperial Japan had the right to kill millions of Chinese.


My response to the first bolded sentence is simple, it's really convenient how that law didn't exist when you came here and stole this land 500 years ago, isn't it? Turnabout is always fair play , to the fair minded.



To the second bolded sentence,
It is respecting the rights of the individual to shoot them 15 times in the back for a broken taillight because they are not white? Is it respecting the rights of the individual to rape them as a child and say it's ok because they're just animals anyway?
I think you mean WHITE individuals.
You have some interesting views on right and wrong, lets leave it at that.

What I said is a statement of absolute indisputably scientific fact, and I do not deny it is a "racist" statement.

I do deny it the legitimacy of any claim that it is wrong to state a fact based on the fact it might offend someones feelers...

I dont believe you are Cherokee.If you are they should be ashamed of you.
The Cherokee owned some of the best bottemland in S.E. USA. It was coveted by the real drunkard, Pres. Jackson. He ordered them off. They hired a good atty and it went to the Supreme Court who decided FOR the Cherokees, that they were proper owners of their lands, which had stores, churches, theatres, homes, plantation and the best farms around. Jackson replied, let those 9 old men in dresses enforce it, I have the army and I'm moving them out. And he did. And half of them, marched in the winter, died.

"Right of Conquest" EXPLAINS, NOT JUSTIFIES the reason why Europeans colonized the Americas. Most of the land was open and unused.

Civilized people respect individual rights and Western institutions were the best representation of that concept.

THAT JUSTIFICATION IS WHY SUCH INSTITUTIONS HAVE THE ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO TAKE CHARGE DESPITE BEING IMPERFECT.

That does not mean that every leader or official involved operated with that in mind.

That is precisely what is at stake when people who do not respect individual rights attempt to undermine such institutions. Such people are ENEMIES OF CIVILIZATION.

Yes, when you point out the fact that by their own laws and their own constitution we legally own 87 percent of north America makes them very nervous. The US constitution states that a legally ratified treaty supersedes all other state and federal laws, in plain terms.

This is why Indians have fought and died for the Constitution in every major war despite being exempt from draft, the hope that someday it will be implemented.

Thats sounds almost Shrewish.


Basically what is right for YOU is right, period. When you respect my rights both natural and legal, I will respect yours.

I wont hold my breath. You seem to think being white gives you godlike status.

Thanks for the response. I'm not Native American but I cringed when I read that post.

Your first two words tells everything I need to know about you.

Am I to understand the governments in Europe respected individual rights more than the Indian nations?

Is that why the whites came here to escape those governments, because their individual rights were being respected?

My history books lean towards the opposite.

Every person born here is native american.

Indians are a different thing. Thats why a real indian will never refer to himself as a native american, it's a capitulation. Most will identify as "indian" or by their nation

You are a perfect example of failure in that you practice circular reasoning.

WHOEVER practices individual rights is the most civilized. Japan has been more civilized than the USSR, Hong Kong more civilized than Maoist China or Cuba.

The reason the native Americans were defeated is that they were less advanced. The same could happen to earth if invaded by aliens. THAT has nothing to do with right or wrong. What is right is respect for life: whoever practices that is the most civilized. THAT is the justification for the defeat of the native Americans. CIVILIZATION that had such laws on the books, although imperfect in implementation, expanded and took over.

There were two primary reasons why the Indians were displaced. The biggest factor was 9/10s of their numbers being decimated by diseases the whites brought here.

It had nothing to do with superior technology, Indians had firearms and horses within HOURS after the whites appeared here with them and very often had superior weaponry, and it wasn't smarter warriors either. Ask General Custer.


The other primary reason was they were MORE civilized than the whites, and instead of just killing them and burning their ships when they first showed up, they welcomed them , made room for them as equals, and helped them gain a foothold. The idea that whites were more civilized is insane, they were the most lawless race on earth.

The Indian "civilizations" in a lot of their cities engaged in human sacrifice, how's that for comparison?

BALDERDASH

Catholic historical fiction, used to justify the rape of a civilization. By the time the Spaniards got there the civilizations that SUPPOSEDLY engaged in those practices had collapsed due to a change in climate and agricultural failure, they were long gone. Quite relying on hollywood for history. According to my own research there were in fact ritual killings of captured enemy combatants given that choice , but they involved a much different scenario than portrayed by Mel Gibson. Remember at the end of "Appocalypto" when the Spanish ships showed up, and the man escaping the sacrifice saw them?

BULLSHIT. Total bullshit. That was a full 500 years after the collapse of the civilization

I wont deny Indians engaged in ritual killings, I know they did.

But how does that compare with burning them at the stake or some of the torture devices used on "heretics", like for instance drawing and quartering,pulling them apart with horses or impaling them in the asshole with a huge metal object?

When we killed people it was usually because we figured they needed killing, we had a good reason. For instance a person who murdered a child was usually given a punishment that fit the crime.

How does that compare to some of the evil machinations going on in Europe at the same time period, for such crimes as daring to read a bible, deny the pope was god, or denying the earth was the center of the universe?

Some advanced civilization.