Ok, so there are morons on the left that don't have a clue, and idiots, like you and dury, on the right that don't have a clue.
Is it okay to be white?
- Thread starter White_Unifier
- Start date
Ok, so there are morons on the left that don't have a clue, and idiots, like you and dury, on the right that don't have a clue.
That might be the reason why you get so many things f**ked up! Perhaps you can send me the list of words and phrases that are acceptable, so I don't piss you off in the future!
You object to "methinks" but you have no qualms about using the term "idiot boy"! You ARE F**Ked!
How do you translate 'generally believed' to become 'without a doubt'? The tribes were more interested in stealing a woman to take as a wife than killing off the neighboring tribe so they can become 'rich and powerful'. Nomadic is a way of life rather than it being done only as the last means of survival.
Maybe instead of continuing to spout nonsense you should take 5 minutes to Google Jody Wilson Raybould, our Federal Justice Minister. She could probably show you a thing or two to quench your arrogance!
Strawman. You gonna run through the entire list of fallacies, or just stick to the main ones?
Be sure to take a video of that when you try it, uploaded live would be best. BTW in the movie the dog would have been an army dog as a rejected wolf is probably really old or carries some sort of disease like rabies.
(Seems a bit hypocritical if a white man wrote this considering human trafficking is a bigger industry today than the drug industry, oddly enough that would include some Indian children as well)
Setting the Record Straight: Did American Indians Kidnap People?
Q: Did American Indians really steal people's children, or was that just something white people made up to scare their kids?
A: No, unlike many tales of Indian savagery, this one has a real basis in fact. It was common practice throughout the Americas to capture and adopt people from enemy tribes (particularly children, teenagers, and women). In a few tribes this was a traumatic kidnapping, sometimes involving a violent hazing ritual prior to adoption. In other tribes it was a mere formality, with eligible young women going out to a rendezvous point at night to be "carried off" by a neighboring tribe so they could find husbands there. In most tribes, intertribal kidnapping fell somewhere in between those two extremes--a well-established convention of war that simultaneously encouraged exogamy (new blood in the tribe) and ensured the safety of women and children on both sides. Most Indians tried to avoid being captured, but few captives tried to escape and there were few rescue attempts by their kinsmen, who could reasonably expect them to be well-treated and well-cared for. Mistreating someone once he or she had been adopted into a tribe was considered evil (many Indian legends and folktales revolve around some villain who abuses an adoptee and is punished for this misdeed). Adoptees usually also had full social mobility, and often wound up in leadership positions or married to an important person in their new tribe.
So was this a barbaric custom? Well, the Europeans were certainly horrified by it (particularly the English, who tended to consider a white woman being married to a nonwhite man offensive). On the other hand, the Indians were equally horrified to find that the Europeans routinely killed women and children while raiding Indian villages, and that when they did take captives, they were frequently treated as slaves. Each side definitely came away with the impression that the other was dishonorable at war and couldn't really be trusted. When both sides are in mutual understanding about it, the adoption of prisoners-of-war is a reasonable system that preserves life as well as ransoming them back does (and much better than taking no prisoners). When only one side assumed it was the standard, though, the end result was a lot of dead Indian civilians who had incorrectly assumed their safety would be guaranteed and a lot of grieving English families who had no way of maintaining contact with their loved ones or even knowing if they were still alive.
If Europe had been acting like the Indians their place would not be the sewer it's been for 1,000 years before they found America.Maybe instead of continuing to spout nonsense you should take 5 minutes to Google Jody Wilson Raybould, our Federal Justice Minister. She could probably show you a thing or two to quench your arrogance!
Last edited:
Actually most settlers came over here from Europe for the same reasons people do nowadays.....
Seeking a better life for themselves and their children.
Seeking a better life for themselves and their children.
Left unsaid is their lives at home being made unbearable so moving would be the best option. Today we call them refugees from a war zone. You do know how Australia was settled and there were no Indian Wars to be won first. The US probably announced the wars were over 50 years before the buffalo were killed off. Free land, . . . as soon as you kill the natives that are still on it.
Interesting that this subject should be discussed to-day
It's Louis Riel day in Ontario....
Métis Nation of Ontario | News and Media | News
Dang! I started this thread and even I didn't expect it to go this far. How much is there to say on the subject of a flyer campaign saying it's okay to be white?
Just one instance of how an indigenous person CAN progress beyond 492 A.D. culture. You're probably right in that it's difficult to help people like that!
Bull. You waved a red rag to the racists, and sure enough, they charged.
They never fail to rally to the bloody shirt.
And you demonstrate your basic cluelessness with every post, Mister Special.
Still waiting for someone to show how anything I said was incorrect.