Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Upper Michigan's Source)   How bad is it in northern Iraq? So bad people are flocking to Syria for safety   (uppermichiganssource.com) divider line 62
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

2532 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Aug 2014 at 11:25 PM (24 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



62 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-08-11 10:26:36 PM  
I don't mean to be insensitive, but isn't this basically a reverse Inquisition?
 
2014-08-11 11:27:40 PM  

redslippers: I don't mean to be insensitive, but isn't this basically a reverse Inquisition?


After you've converted people by the sword, you're not supposed to kill them.  It kind of defeats the whole purpose of the exercise.
 
2014-08-11 11:31:59 PM  

redslippers: I don't mean to be insensitive, but isn't this basically a reverse Inquisition?


It's not only the Christians being slaughtered.  There is a religious group that I had not heard of until two days ago, but apparently has millions of followers, and was basically has its roots as a transitional philosophy from polytheist to monotheism, called Yazidis.  Really fascinating people and culture from what I read of them, though I fear they may all be dead before anyone has a chance to really study their culture.
 
2014-08-11 11:33:11 PM  

ArkPanda: redslippers: I don't mean to be insensitive, but isn't this basically a reverse Inquisition?

After you've converted people by the sword, you're not supposed to kill them.  It kind of defeats the whole purpose of the exercise.


The conquistadors did it. They'd convert Aztecs and other native people, and kill them immediately after.
 
2014-08-11 11:37:29 PM  

Some Coke Drinking Guy: redslippers: I don't mean to be insensitive, but isn't this basically a reverse Inquisition?

It's not only the Christians being slaughtered.  There is a religious group that I had not heard of until two days ago, but apparently has millions of followers, and was basically has its roots as a transitional philosophy from polytheist to monotheism, called Yazidis.  Really fascinating people and culture from what I read of them, though I fear they may all be dead before anyone has a chance to really study their culture.


ISIS is targeting anyone who doesn't follow their very specific brand of Sunni Islam.

Horrible people. I think the peshmerga can take them out of the Kurdish regions, but they probably won't go beyond that.
 
2014-08-11 11:38:38 PM  

redslippers: I don't mean to be insensitive, but isn't this basically a reverse Inquisition?


NOBODY EXPECTS THE REVERSE INQUISTION!

31.media.tumblr.com
 
2014-08-11 11:39:41 PM  

HMS_Blinkin: ArkPanda: redslippers: I don't mean to be insensitive, but isn't this basically a reverse Inquisition?

After you've converted people by the sword, you're not supposed to kill them.  It kind of defeats the whole purpose of the exercise.

The conquistadors did it. They'd convert Aztecs and other native people, and kill them immediately after.


Good, now that we have establish that Christians have been equally bad, let's not allow that to distract us from today's evil, and finding a way to put a stop to it.  America made this mess, America has a moral duty to sit it right by stopping ISIS.
 
2014-08-11 11:40:14 PM  

HMS_Blinkin: ArkPanda: redslippers: I don't mean to be insensitive, but isn't this basically a reverse Inquisition?

After you've converted people by the sword, you're not supposed to kill them.  It kind of defeats the whole purpose of the exercise.

The conquistadors did it. They'd convert Aztecs and other native people, and kill them immediately after.


Pretty sure Southern Baptists would do the same thing if they had their way.
 
2014-08-11 11:41:37 PM  
Syriasly?
 
2014-08-11 11:44:59 PM  
They have been fleeing to Syria since 03.  BFD.  The Iraqi's don't fight, they just don't, we can not save them.  They are just farked.  No one can say we didn't try.
 
2014-08-11 11:48:15 PM  

ArkPanda: redslippers: I don't mean to be insensitive, but isn't this basically a reverse Inquisition?

After you've converted people by the sword, you're not supposed to kill them.  It kind of defeats the whole purpose of the exercise.


Well, you saved their souls. Why keep them around to possibly revolt when you can just off them and take their stuff too?
 
2014-08-11 11:49:05 PM  
I heard they passed up Detroit.
 
2014-08-12 12:02:57 AM  
I smell air strikes...
 
2014-08-12 12:05:56 AM  

HMS_Blinkin: ArkPanda: redslippers: I don't mean to be insensitive, but isn't this basically a reverse Inquisition?

After you've converted people by the sword, you're not supposed to kill them.  It kind of defeats the whole purpose of the exercise.

The conquistadors did it. They'd convert Aztecs and other native people, and kill them immediately after.



Citation please.
 
2014-08-12 12:14:55 AM  

litespeed74: I heard they passed up Detroit.


Detroit would be a very inhospitable environment for ISIS.  For the same reason that Japan and Germany never even thought about trying to invade.  Iraq on the other hand is defended by neutered puppies that wear dresses and hold hands with each other once a week.

I'm glad we have blown a few ISIS personnel to hell because they needed that and our pilots could use some practice.  Politically, their land is useless and unless we are going to seize that land and exploit their natural resources in exchange for some protection and funding (far below what their resources are worth but far above what they need)  I cant rationalize spending another dime on that scorched shiathole if not to use it as an impact area for the flyboys to practice on.

I believe the best way to deal with these uppity "insurgents" is to let them kill all the innocents so there is nothing left to cry over when we eventually torch the entire region and lay claim to what is underneath.
 
2014-08-12 12:49:19 AM  

theflatline: HMS_Blinkin: ArkPanda: redslippers: I don't mean to be insensitive, but isn't this basically a reverse Inquisition?

After you've converted people by the sword, you're not supposed to kill them.  It kind of defeats the whole purpose of the exercise.

The conquistadors did it. They'd convert Aztecs and other native people, and kill them immediately after.


Citation please.


The Spanish crown actually set out a number of laws protecting the indigenous people from harm (though not from proselytizing). I don't know how strictly it was enforced, but it was there. I think the Mexica were considered subjects of the crown.
 
2014-08-12 01:02:46 AM  

Some Coke Drinking Guy: America made this mess, America has a moral duty to sit it right by stopping ISIS.


And then whoever we back will bite us in the ass in 20 years. Maybe we should stop sticking our noses where they don't belong.
 
2014-08-12 01:18:32 AM  

umad: Some Coke Drinking Guy: America made this mess, America has a moral duty to sit it right by stopping ISIS.

And then whoever we back will bite us in the ass in 20 years. Maybe we should stop sticking our noses where they don't belong.


Yeah, like Europe.  What a shiathole we made of that place.
 
2014-08-12 01:22:05 AM  

sandreckoner: umad: Some Coke Drinking Guy: America made this mess, America has a moral duty to sit it right by stopping ISIS.

And then whoever we back will bite us in the ass in 20 years. Maybe we should stop sticking our noses where they don't belong.

Yeah, like Europe.  What a shiathole we made of that place.


And a fat lot of good we have done since then. Our policies have only failed for 50 years, so we should give them 50 more just to be sure. Right?
 
2014-08-12 01:32:10 AM  

sandreckoner: umad: Some Coke Drinking Guy: America made this mess, America has a moral duty to sit it right by stopping ISIS.

And then whoever we back will bite us in the ass in 20 years. Maybe we should stop sticking our noses where they don't belong.

Yeah, like Europe.  What a shiathole we made of that place.


Eat a dick!  I would vacation in Britan during the battle there of, before I would in that sandy little shiathole again and be paid.
 
2014-08-12 01:46:45 AM  

umad: sandreckoner: umad: Some Coke Drinking Guy: America made this mess, America has a moral duty to sit it right by stopping ISIS.

And then whoever we back will bite us in the ass in 20 years. Maybe we should stop sticking our noses where they don't belong.

Yeah, like Europe.  What a shiathole we made of that place.

And a fat lot of good we have done since then. Our policies have only failed for 50 years, so we should give them 50 more just to be sure. Right?


Uh, sure.  Failed for 50 years.  Everything is America's fault.  We suck.  Americans are stupid.  Every other country is better, smart, superior.

/It's not rational.  It's Fark.
 
2014-08-12 01:47:38 AM  

thisisarepeat: sandreckoner: umad: Some Coke Drinking Guy: America made this mess, America has a moral duty to sit it right by stopping ISIS.

And then whoever we back will bite us in the ass in 20 years. Maybe we should stop sticking our noses where they don't belong.

Yeah, like Europe.  What a shiathole we made of that place.

Eat a dick!  I would vacation in Britan during the battle there of, before I would in that sandy little shiathole again and be paid.


It was sarcasm.
 
2014-08-12 01:55:04 AM  
TFA is only half the story.

The Yazidis that were rescued by Kurdish fighters were initially moved across the border into a town in Syria, then transported into Iraqi Kurdistan. At least that's what other reports said.
 
2014-08-12 02:00:44 AM  

optional: ISIS is targeting anyone who doesn't follow their very specific brand of Sunni Islam.

Horrible people.


They got booted from Al Qaeda.  That tells you all you need to know about how nuts these guys are.
 
2014-08-12 02:03:57 AM  

Smackledorfer: optional: ISIS is targeting anyone who doesn't follow their very specific brand of Sunni Islam.

Horrible people.

They got booted from Al Qaeda.  That tells you all you need to know about how nuts these guys are.


I'm a little skeptical that they're that much worse than Al-Qaeda. Mostly, I think Al-Qaeda is pissed that ISIS is stealing their thunder. Death to both of them.
 
2014-08-12 02:15:11 AM  
FTFA: "The extremists have captured hundreds of Yazidi women."

According to the Qu'ran, which of course I read in translation, female captives ("those your right hands possess") may be used as sex slaves. Whether they consent or not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma_malakat_aymanukum especially

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma_malakat_aymanukum#Sexual_relations_w it h_captives

http://quran.com/4/24

And what is this "Islamic State" known for? Out-Talibaning the freaking Taliban, being too radical for al Qaeda.

Doesn't the USA have tactical nukes? That can be used for "precision bombing" of a fairly small area? Don't we at least still have satellites and "intelligence" enough to guide planes and missiles capable of destroying most of IS's tanks etc. in a few measly sorties? We did it to Iraq twice, in "Desert Storm" and in 2003; is there any reason we can't do it again to one ragtag pickup army of murderous fanatics?

Who except more "Islamist" super-fanatics would really mind if we wiped "Islamic State" from the face of the Earth?
 
2014-08-12 02:33:14 AM  
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2014/02/does-islam-allow-muslims-to-r a pe-female.html

http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/femalecaptives.htm

And no, quoting [Christian] anti-Muslims is not a wholly negative thing: who do we quote on the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews?
Acknowledging that there really was a concerted effort by the Nazis to murder as many Jews as they could catch is not the same thing as saying that everything Israel does is okay. Likewise why "reinvent the wheel" on this subject?

If there's one thing that really upsets me it's rape. Whether the victim is captured by "soldiers" in a "holy war" or by a knife-toting psycho in a parking garage.

WIPE THEM OUT.

 
2014-08-12 02:39:24 AM  

The One True TheDavid: Who except more "Islamist" super-fanatics would really mind if we wiped "Islamic State" from the face of the Earth?


I'm sure the leaders of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, heck even the PLO/Hamas, etc. aren't shedding any tears over these attacks.
 
2014-08-12 02:41:30 AM  

HMS_Blinkin: ArkPanda: redslippers: I don't mean to be insensitive, but isn't this basically a reverse Inquisition?

After you've converted people by the sword, you're not supposed to kill them.  It kind of defeats the whole purpose of the exercise.

The conquistadors did it. They'd convert Aztecs and other native people, and kill them immediately after.


Some call it a very long baptism, others call it murder by drowning.
 
2014-08-12 02:42:56 AM  

optional: I'm a little skeptical that they're that much worse than Al-Qaeda. Mostly, I think Al-Qaeda is pissed that ISIS is stealing their thunder. Death to both of them.


I'm not. There is crazy (but smart in it's own way) then there is crazy and not giving a damn about what happens tomorrow. AQ, and this opinion is given begrudgingly, was smart in comparison to these guys. They at least tried to play the long game at the start. Grandiose operations that took years to go from an idea to fruition was a hallmark of Bin Laden's style. Crazy, insane even, but smart in execution which is what made him so dangerous.

ISIS has none of that. They are more akin to a pack rabid dogs and they will burn out sooner rather than later because of that.
 
2014-08-12 02:43:24 AM  

The One True TheDavid: FTFA: "The extremists have captured hundreds of Yazidi women."

According to the Qu'ran, which of course I read in translation, female captives ("those your right hands possess") may be used as sex slaves. Whether they consent or not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma_malakat_aymanukum especially

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma_malakat_aymanukum#Sexual_relations_w it h_captives

http://quran.com/4/24

And what is this "Islamic State" known for? Out-Talibaning the freaking Taliban, being too radical for al Qaeda.

Doesn't the USA have tactical nukes? That can be used for "precision bombing" of a fairly small area? Don't we at least still have satellites and "intelligence" enough to guide planes and missiles capable of destroying most of IS's tanks etc. in a few measly sorties? We did it to Iraq twice, in "Desert Storm" and in 2003; is there any reason we can't do it again to one ragtag pickup army of murderous fanatics?

Who except more "Islamist" super-fanatics would really mind if we wiped "Islamic State" from the face of the Earth?


1. You would make even more fanatics in the process.

2. Jews have, according to the bible, committed some pretty heavy atrocities too have they not? In the name of god no less. But why are you even dragging us down this road?

Using a made up sky wizard to justify harming others is bad. All religions have members who do just that. My conclusion? Get rid of the make-believe altogether.
 
2014-08-12 02:44:12 AM  

optional: theflatline: HMS_Blinkin: ArkPanda: redslippers: I don't mean to be insensitive, but isn't this basically a reverse Inquisition?

After you've converted people by the sword, you're not supposed to kill them.  It kind of defeats the whole purpose of the exercise.

The conquistadors did it. They'd convert Aztecs and other native people, and kill them immediately after.


Citation please.

The Spanish crown actually set out a number of laws protecting the indigenous people from harm (though not from proselytizing). I don't know how strictly it was enforced, but it was there. I think the Mexica were considered subjects of the crown.


Disease from the Old World killed far more natives than the Church, conquistadors, and forced conversion ever could.
 
2014-08-12 02:49:14 AM  

Radioactive Ass: optional: I'm a little skeptical that they're that much worse than Al-Qaeda. Mostly, I think Al-Qaeda is pissed that ISIS is stealing their thunder. Death to both of them.

I'm not. There is crazy (but smart in it's own way) then there is crazy and not giving a damn about what happens tomorrow. AQ, and this opinion is given begrudgingly, was smart in comparison to these guys. They at least tried to play the long game at the start. Grandiose operations that took years to go from an idea to fruition was a hallmark of Bin Laden's style. Crazy, insane even, but smart in execution which is what made him so dangerous.

ISIS has none of that. They are more akin to a pack rabid dogs and they will burn out sooner rather than later because of that.


Yeah, but Al-Qaeda in Iraq eventually eroded its own support base by doing stuff akin to what ISIS is doing (though they were a bit sneakier about it). The only difference is that now the Sunnis are running scared, so they may be willing to put up with ISIS as protection against Shi'ites (realistically the current government couldn't be worse than ISIS, but it's not clear how much the average Sunni knows).
 
2014-08-12 02:57:46 AM  

redmid17: Disease from the Old World killed far more natives than the Church, conquistadors, and forced conversion ever could.


This. Europeans had built up immunities from centuries, millenniums even, of exposure to pestilence and disease brought on by domesticating animals (something that the meso-americans never did). The new world had none of those immunities. That's what eventually eradicated them. Aside from a few contested examples of Small Pox infected blankets (can a virus live that long outside of a hosts RNA?) I doubt that any widespread concerted effort was even made to spread any disease. In a world where the basic concept of living beings so small that they can't be seen but can kill you would be looked at like whoever said it was a blithering idiot and sent off to a sanitarium. Hell, Newton was a prisoner for pointing out things that were easily observed but looked at just a bit differently than what conventions of the time dictated.
 
2014-08-12 03:02:04 AM  

Radioactive Ass: I'm not. There is crazy (but smart in it's own way) then there is crazy and not giving a damn about what happens tomorrow. AQ, and this opinion is given begrudgingly, was smart in comparison to these guys. They at least tried to play the long game at the start. Grandiose operations that took years to go from an idea to fruition was a hallmark of Bin Laden's style. Crazy, insane even, but smart in execution which is what made him so dangerous.

ISIS has none of that. They are more akin to a pack rabid dogs and they will burn out sooner rather than later because of that.


That's my take on it as well. Sooner or later, ISIS will run out of easily available external enemies. When that happens, they'll look for internal ones. Pass the popcorn.
 
2014-08-12 03:09:25 AM  

optional: Yeah, but Al-Qaeda in Iraq eventually eroded its own support base by doing stuff akin to what ISIS is doing (though they were a bit sneakier about it). The only difference is that now the Sunnis are running scared, so they may be willing to put up with ISIS as protection against Shi'ites (realistically the current government couldn't be worse than ISIS, but it's not clear how much the average Sunni knows).


And AQ went downhill because of it. I was specific in saying (begrudgingly) that at the start AQ was smart because they went downhill once they became the splinters and the hunted. Desperation can breed bad decisions. Bush was sort of right when he said that he didn't care about Bin Laden anymore. He was cut off from the rest of the organization that he built which led to them imploding upon themselves when left to their own local devices. It was a classic example of divide and conquer. Even a highly compartmentalized organization needs guidance from time to time. Denying that guidance is what hurt AQ the most. ISIS has no guidance that I can see. They will eventually eat themselves from within. What I fear is that that will happen long after they have finished their genocidal task.
 
2014-08-12 03:25:43 AM  

Some Coke Drinking Guy: redslippers: I don't mean to be insensitive, but isn't this basically a reverse Inquisition?

It's not only the Christians being slaughtered.  There is a religious group that I had not heard of until two days ago, but apparently has millions of followers, and was basically has its roots as a transitional philosophy from polytheist to monotheism, called Yazidis.  Really fascinating people and culture from what I read of them, though I fear they may all be dead before anyone has a chance to really study their culture.


There's a huge population of Iraqi Christians in my hometown. I seriously shudder to think of what they're going through right now worrying about families left behind.
 
2014-08-12 04:42:01 AM  

Radioactive Ass: redmid17: Disease from the Old World killed far more natives than the Church, conquistadors, and forced conversion ever could.

This. Europeans had built up immunities from centuries, millenniums even, of exposure to pestilence and disease brought on by domesticating animals (something that the meso-americans never did). The new world had none of those immunities. That's what eventually eradicated them. Aside from a few contested examples of Small Pox infected blankets (can a virus live that long outside of a hosts RNA?) I doubt that any widespread concerted effort was even made to spread any disease. In a world where the basic concept of living beings so small that they can't be seen but can kill you would be looked at like whoever said it was a blithering idiot and sent off to a sanitarium. Hell, Newton was a prisoner for pointing out things that were easily observed but looked at just a bit differently than what conventions of the time dictated.


You might be right but why is it that Natives in the US are an incredibly small minority but a huge part of Mexican ancestry. I think there was a clear genocide of Indians in the US. Correct me if I'm wrong.
 
2014-08-12 05:27:29 AM  

TheJoe03: You might be right but why is it that Natives in the US are an incredibly small minority but a huge part of Mexican ancestry. I think there was a clear genocide of Indians in the US. Correct me if I'm wrong.


I never said that the exploitation of the natural progression of what was really germ warfare didn't happen. Just that it wasn't as intentional as it has been made out to be. I know for a fact that some of my ancestors were murderous assholes as far as Native Americans goes. I also know that Native Americans were murderous assholes as far as my ancestors went as well. There are no clean hands there on either side. I don't hold it against either because the times were different. I am not them, I don't pretend to represent them and if push comes to shove I'll represent myself first and them second.
 
2014-08-12 05:36:22 AM  

Radioactive Ass: TheJoe03: You might be right but why is it that Natives in the US are an incredibly small minority but a huge part of Mexican ancestry. I think there was a clear genocide of Indians in the US. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I never said that the exploitation of the natural progression of what was really germ warfare didn't happen. Just that it wasn't as intentional as it has been made out to be. I know for a fact that some of my ancestors were murderous assholes as far as Native Americans goes. I also know that Native Americans were murderous assholes as far as my ancestors went as well. There are no clean hands there on either side. I don't hold it against either because the times were different. I am not them, I don't pretend to represent them and if push comes to shove I'll represent myself first and them second.


That wasn't my issue with what you said, I was just wondering why Natives under English occupation were basically killed off while Natives under Spanish control are still a massive part of the ancestry in many parts of Latin America. You seem like you know the issue better than me, so I'm being earnest about the difference between how the US and Latin America treated natives.
 
2014-08-12 05:38:09 AM  
For instance, the Spanish treated the Natives like garbage just like the British and Americans did but they are still a huge part of the Mexican population.
 
2014-08-12 05:39:01 AM  
And re-reading that I realized that I didn't answer your question. My bad.

"Why is it that Natives in the US are an incredibly small minority but a huge part of Mexican ancestry."?

They are still 2% of what was there after the population was cut down by disease. My claim was never a statement of wiping out everyone, just that the Darwinian process was especially cruel when introducing new bacteria and viruses into a place that had never seen them before. What is left is a microcosim of what europe faced during the black death. It was much worse as far as death goes if for no other reason than it was not one disease but dozens all at once. That doesn't mean that it was intentional, fortuitous maybe depending on your goal, but not inherently intentional.
 
2014-08-12 05:39:30 AM  
Perhaps the fact that Natives in Mexico actually had a civilization was the difference, I'm not sure but it would make sense.
 
2014-08-12 05:45:19 AM  

TheJoe03: That wasn't my issue with what you said, I was just wondering why Natives under English occupation were basically killed off while Natives under Spanish control are still a massive part of the ancestry in many parts of Latin America. You seem like you know the issue better than me, so I'm being earnest about the difference between how the US and Latin America treated natives.


As to that the Spaniards had goals of gathering gold for their church. Conversion was secondary but they did bring along missionaries who didn't share that vision.The English didn't do that. I can't justify either one's methods because I find both a bit repugnant for different reasons. But I do get why they did what they did in those very specific circumstances. I wouldn't do them myself but I'm not them.
 
2014-08-12 05:47:25 AM  

TheJoe03: Perhaps the fact that Natives in Mexico actually had a civilization was the difference, I'm not sure but it would make sense.


And civilization by default means a large cluster of people in which disease unchecked will take hold. It's really a chicken or the egg situation.
 
2014-08-12 05:52:02 AM  

Radioactive Ass: TheJoe03: Perhaps the fact that Natives in Mexico actually had a civilization was the difference, I'm not sure but it would make sense.

And civilization by default means a large cluster of people in which disease unchecked will take hold. It's really a chicken or the egg situation.


I appreciate your responses, it's rare to actually learn something on this site. I still think the mass deaths of Native Americans went beyond just lack of immunity to European diseases, especially in the US, but I understand what you're saying completely.
 
2014-08-12 06:06:07 AM  

TheJoe03: Radioactive Ass: TheJoe03: You might be right but why is it that Natives in the US are an incredibly small minority but a huge part of Mexican ancestry. I think there was a clear genocide of Indians in the US. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I never said that the exploitation of the natural progression of what was really germ warfare didn't happen. Just that it wasn't as intentional as it has been made out to be. I know for a fact that some of my ancestors were murderous assholes as far as Native Americans goes. I also know that Native Americans were murderous assholes as far as my ancestors went as well. There are no clean hands there on either side. I don't hold it against either because the times were different. I am not them, I don't pretend to represent them and if push comes to shove I'll represent myself first and them second.

That wasn't my issue with what you said, I was just wondering why Natives under English occupation were basically killed off while Natives under Spanish control are still a massive part of the ancestry in many parts of Latin America. You seem like you know the issue better than me, so I'm being earnest about the difference between how the US and Latin America treated natives.


The US got a lot of European settlement while Spain comparatively struggled to entice people to Mexico. So where we saw Natives as competitors for the good and eventually even the marginal farmland, Mexican authorities saw them as necessary and valuable labor. Thus ours end up Trail of Tears-ing it onto reservations, in constant conflict with white settlers encroaching on what land has been left them, and repeatedly fighting wars over another round of broken treaties.
 
2014-08-12 06:07:51 AM  
The passing of disease went both ways. Syphilis was unique to the Americas. It burned though Europe until penicillin killed it (and Gonorrhea) yet nobody accuses the Native Americans of passing it on intentionally. It really was a case of shiat happening with nobody having a clue as to why it was happening. They had guesses but no proof.
 
2014-08-12 06:22:09 AM  

Skirl Hutsenreiter: TheJoe03: Radioactive Ass: TheJoe03: You might be right but why is it that Natives in the US are an incredibly small minority but a huge part of Mexican ancestry. I think there was a clear genocide of Indians in the US. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I never said that the exploitation of the natural progression of what was really germ warfare didn't happen. Just that it wasn't as intentional as it has been made out to be. I know for a fact that some of my ancestors were murderous assholes as far as Native Americans goes. I also know that Native Americans were murderous assholes as far as my ancestors went as well. There are no clean hands there on either side. I don't hold it against either because the times were different. I am not them, I don't pretend to represent them and if push comes to shove I'll represent myself first and them second.

That wasn't my issue with what you said, I was just wondering why Natives under English occupation were basically killed off while Natives under Spanish control are still a massive part of the ancestry in many parts of Latin America. You seem like you know the issue better than me, so I'm being earnest about the difference between how the US and Latin America treated natives.

The US got a lot of European settlement while Spain comparatively struggled to entice people to Mexico. So where we saw Natives as competitors for the good and eventually even the marginal farmland, Mexican authorities saw them as necessary and valuable labor. Thus ours end up Trail of Tears-ing it onto reservations, in constant conflict with white settlers encroaching on what land has been left them, and repeatedly fighting wars over another round of broken treaties.


Didn't know that, that basically answers my question.
 
2014-08-12 06:49:18 AM  
Must be how the Cathars were treated. A different name but the same ole game.
 
Displayed 50 of 62 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report