Its OK now to teach religion in public schools

[StLucieBengal]

(10-24-2015, 07:09 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I had a feeling you were going to cite Australia, Canada, and the US.

So the places where the British just massacred the native populations, populated it with Europeans, and created racial boundaries in society worked better? Makes sense. Had we not killed off so many Native Americans, we might have the same issue that they have in Africa or the Middle East where Europeans drew borders that ignored tribal and ethnic rivalries. 

The Spanish way of blending cultures has proven a failure time and again.

And you make it out that the British came here to slaughter Indians .... They didn't ... The native Americans are responsible for their own past behaviors. Maybe they shouldn't have sold off land.... Or maybe they should have crushed the colonists immediately. Either way they allowed everything to happen by standing by.

Whether you like the colonization or not does not change the fact that the British were by far the best at it and instilled the work ethic and structure that have allowed these colonies ro succeed today.

[StLucieBengal]

It's easy to be anti colonization. But I am thankful we were a British colony.

[BmorePat87]

(10-24-2015, 07:23 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: It's easy to be anti colonization.  But I am thankful we were a British colony.

That British work ethic worked very well for Sudan. 

[BmorePat87]

(10-24-2015, 07:20 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote:  The native Americans are responsible for their own past behaviors.   Maybe they shouldn't have sold off land....  Or maybe they should have crushed the colonists immediately.    Either way they allowed everything to happen by standing by.    

Historical victim shaming. This may be even more hilarious than the fact that a large portion of the area you deemed "uncivilized" consists of former British colonies.


Those 200 dead women and children at Wounded Knee only had themselves to blame. 

[StLucieBengal]

(10-24-2015, 07:55 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Historical victim shaming. This may be even more hilarious than the fact that a large portion of the area you deemed "uncivilized" consists of former British colonies.


Those 200 dead women and children at Wounded Knee only had themselves to blame. 

Yes the Brits messed up the Middle East. But the French also had a lot to do with that as well. Maybe they should have wiped out the people and replaced them with Brits lol. Probably be a lot more peaceful

[StLucieBengal]

(10-24-2015, 07:42 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote:

That British work ethic worked very well for Sudan. 

The Brits tried to unite Sudan and Egypt in a cooperative working relationship. Got independence in 59, coup in 69, another coup in 71 led by the communist party. And a long of these ..... Maybe they should have stayed under British control. At least they had stability with the Brits .

[Rotobeast]

Rhodesia, anyone ?

[BmorePat87]

(10-25-2015, 01:35 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Yes the Brits messed up the Middle East.  But the French also had a lot to do with that as well.   Maybe they should have wiped out the people and replaced them with Brits lol.  Probably be a lot more peaceful

(10-25-2015, 01:42 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: The Brits tried to unite Sudan and Egypt in a cooperative working relationship.   Got independence in 59, coup in 69, another coup in 71 led by the communist party.    And a long of these ..... Maybe they should have stayed under British control.   At least they had stability with the Brits .

So you acknowledge that the "British method" only works when they replace a native population with Brits and that the former colonies of theirs in which they drew lines that lumped together feuding ethnic/religious/tribal groups are not doing so well because they're still recovering from these effects?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-24-2015, 07:20 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: The Spanish way of blending cultures has proven a failure time and again.  

And you make it out that the British came here to slaughter Indians ....  They didn't ...  The native Americans are responsible for their own past behaviors.   Maybe they shouldn't have sold off land....  Or maybe they should have crushed the colonists immediately.    Either way they allowed everything to happen by standing by.    

Whether you like the colonization or not does not change the fact that the British were by far the best at it and instilled the work ethic and structure that have allowed these colonies ro succeed today.

The bolded part is truly hilarious.

[StLucieBengal]

(10-25-2015, 09:42 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: So you acknowledge that the "British method" only works when they replace a native population with Brits and that the former colonies of theirs in which they drew lines that lumped together feuding ethnic/religious/tribal groups are not doing so well because they're still recovering from these effects?

Not at all. They have other successes. You are the one championing the removal of the native people. One thing that doesn't work is trying to blend the cultures like the Spanish tried.

Wonder how different Central amercia would have been had the British colonized them instead of the Spanish ... I am certainly glad we had a the Brits.

[StLucieBengal]

(10-25-2015, 03:21 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: The bolded part is truly hilarious.

When someone "invades" your home do you kick them out or let them move into the guest room and eat your food?

You can not help stupid. They lost what they "had" if they ever had anything. Plus they have made out handsomely.... Plenty of reparations. $1500 a month tax free for life plus your own lands to govern as you wish.

By 18 Indians have $324,000 not counting the compounded interest of 18 years. Around 640-660k. Wonder how many 18 year olds who would have their life changed by that cash infusion. Instead of debts.

But yes please go on about how rough the Indians have it lol

[fredtoast]

(10-25-2015, 04:06 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote:    Plus they have made out handsomely.... Plenty of reparations.   $1500 a month tax free for life plus your own lands to govern as you wish.  

By 18 Indians have $324,000 not counting the compounded interest of 18 years.  Around 640-660k.    Wonder how many 18 year olds who would have their life changed by that cash infusion.   Instead of debts.  

But yes please go on about how rough the Indians have it lol

Link?

[StLucieBengal]

(10-25-2015, 04:12 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Link?

Known fact.  I have clients who are part of the Indian tribe here.  That's the deal.   Same tribe who runs the Hollywood casino.   Seminole Tribe of Florida.

Edit: I used 7% for the example I provided but they are probably getting a better return.

[Belsnickel]

(10-25-2015, 04:06 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: When someone "invades" your home do you kick them out or let them move into the guest room and eat your food?

You can not help stupid. They lost what they "had" if they ever had anything. Plus they have made out handsomely.... Plenty of reparations. $1500 a month tax free for life plus your own lands to govern as you wish.

By 18 Indians have $324,000 not counting the compounded interest of 18 years. Around 640-660k. Wonder how many 18 year olds who would have their life changed by that cash infusion. Instead of debts.

But yes please go on about how rough the Indians have it lol

So why are poverty rates on the ten larget reservations so much higher (4-5 times) than the national average?

[StLucieBengal]

(10-25-2015, 04:32 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So why are poverty rates on the ten larget reservations so much higher (4-5 times) than the national average?

Most keep their money with the tribe. So they can't lose it in a legal dispute. So it's going to push the numbers to look like they do.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-25-2015, 04:06 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: When someone "invades" your home do you kick them out or let them move into the guest room and eat your food?    

You can not help stupid.   They lost what they "had" if they ever had anything.   Plus they have made out handsomely.... Plenty of reparations.   $1500 a month tax free for life plus your own lands to govern as you wish.  

By 18 Indians have $324,000 not counting the compounded interest of 18 years.  Around 640-660k.    Wonder how many 18 year olds who would have their life changed by that cash infusion.   Instead of debts.  

But yes please go on about how rough the Indians have it lol

Irony: a literary technique, originally used in Greek tragedy, by which the full significance of a character's words or actions are clear to the audience or reader although unknown to the character

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-25-2015, 04:22 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Known fact.  I have clients who are part of the Indian tribe here.  That's the deal.   Same tribe who runs the Hollywood casino.   Seminole Tribe of Florida.

Edit:  I used 7% for the example I provided but they are probably getting a better return.

Clients?

[Belsnickel]

(10-25-2015, 04:35 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Most keep their money with the tribe. So they can't lose it in a legal dispute. So it's going to push the numbers to look like they do.

I can't find any federal program like that of what you speak. I see a lot of them are impoverished, jobless, and getting the same assistance offered to all of our impoverished. But nothing to the amount you are referring to. Do you have any source information on this program(s)?

[BmorePat87]

(10-25-2015, 03:54 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Not at all.   They have other successes.   You are the one championing the removal of  the native people.   One thing that doesn't work is trying to blend the cultures like the Spanish tried.  

Wonder how different Central amercia would have been had the British colonized them instead of the Spanish ...   I am certainly glad we had a the Brits.

What makes the garbage Lucie says even more hilarious is that he posted this at the same time in another thread:

(10-25-2015, 04:13 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I agree with you here.   Sykes-Picot was a big failure there....  Along with many other things.   

Iraq shouldn't exist, it should be 3 different countries

Also, for me to "champion" something, I have to support it or defend it. This is why I laugh when you say I don't know the definition of words.

[StLucieBengal]

(10-25-2015, 05:50 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: What makes the garbage Lucie says even more hilarious is that he posted this at the same time in another thread:



Also, for me to "champion" something, I have to support it or defend it. This is why I laugh when you say I don't know the definition of words.

Why is it an issue that I disagree with Sykes-Picot yet am happy we were a British colony instead of another country?