draconix Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 Yeah, I think I got something wrong with that first sentence you quoted. It wasn't their ideas of democracy that were influential, rather, their ideas of equality and liberty. My bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redworld Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 Based on history, United States was founded by Anglo Saxons (Early European Settlers) that wanted more freedom than their homelands. They conquered the natives: Native American Indians by forces. Later, the dominate ethic group (Anglo Saxons) government expanded more lands in the west (originally, the land of Mexicans) by money and wars. In this case, there is no true Americans and the idea of being American is everyone who reside in this land in any means. There is no borders since its ideal is "equal opportunity, freedom, and liberty for everyone" and built with the sweat and the blood of generations of immigrants. On the other hand, U.S became the sovereign State that must upheld the laws of the land in order to survive as a nation. My view is I absolutely refuse "illegal immigrants" for many reasons. The first reason is I came legally to this country by waiting in the line and doing the right way. Secondly, if you illegally come to any foreign nation, than you already broke the law. Next, Only this nation is tolerated illegal immigrants and gave more citizenship (more welcoming) than any other nations. Please, my opponents named any nation that has more lenient for immigrantion or illegals that matter, especially. Finally, we have to secure our borders to protect from any foreign threats and failure is irresponsible and couldn't able to control immigrations. I do support amnesty for illegals' children who were with their parents at young age or war refuges. Oh, my living standards is overall better than my homeland (Burma) where brutal Juntas (military government) rule with iron fists and make the country "a living hell". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 The fact is that some of them did try to adopt European styles of laws, developed trade with Europeans... There's an entire group of people called the Seminoles, who were a tri-racial native American tribe, which treated whites, blacks, and native Americans equally. Truth is, the societies that sprang up forbade white families from running off to join Native American tribes, it had been a pretty big "problem". Given enough time, and peace, the US would have been completely different. The idea of Democracy actually came from Native Americans, who inspired European philosophers like John Locke, who in turn inspired our founders. Later on, we even managed to bastardize that... But you're right, we should get back to keeping others out of the land that we don't own.It's in the United State's best interest at this point to allow people from Mexico to come into the United States for work. People from Mexico are willing to work harder for less money than the lazy people in the US are, and it's that labor that will run our factories, and produce our exports. It's in utilizing this ready and willing workforce that the US will be able to climb out of this debt that we're sinking in. That, and correcting our taxation system, and spending less money overseas. No they aren't. They are just willing to do jobs that americans would rather not, as those jobs don't really pay well. I would also point out, that our manufacturing jobs aren't going to illegal immigrants, they are going to china. Please keep your facts straight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
draconix Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 I said "will" not "are," I'm speaking hypothetically here. If the US decides not to drown in it's own debt, we will need to bring factory jobs back to the US, and who will man those? The people of the US are stuck in "service" mode rather than production mode. And I think most Americans are too stubborn and/or proud to make that transition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
draconix Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 @redworldDefine "founded". It would be rather bold of you to make the claim that what the Indians had here just simply didn't count.Also, the people who came here were not ever seeking freedom, the people who came here were seeking fortune; Gold and Slaves. America wasn't founded on the sweat and blood of immigrants either. People who moved westward had this habit of only settling on the towns already settled by Native Americans, of note where people would come across the fields of natives who had since been annihilated. That's why so many towns are named after "fields," such as "Springfield". The land had already been developed. We have a much worse history than most people know. And you know what they say about people who don't learn from history... Congratulations on your immigration to the United States. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 I said "will" not "are," I'm speaking hypothetically here. If the US decides not to drown in it's own debt, we will need to bring factory jobs back to the US, and who will man those? The people of the US are stuck in "service" mode rather than production mode. And I think most Americans are too stubborn and/or proud to make that transition. How about all those folks that used to work in manufacturing, whose jobs got outsourced to china, and have been unemployed for pushing two years now? You seem to have a pretty low opinion of american workers, not sure where you get your information, but, I would highly suggest getting a new source. @redworldDefine "founded". It would be rather bold of you to make the claim that what the Indians had here just simply didn't count.Also, the people who came here were not ever seeking freedom, the people who came here were seeking fortune; Gold and Slaves. America wasn't founded on the sweat and blood of immigrants either. People who moved westward had this habit of only settling on the towns already settled by Native Americans, of note where people would come across the fields of natives who had since been annihilated. That's why so many towns are named after "fields," such as "Springfield". The land had already been developed. We have a much worse history than most people know. And you know what they say about people who don't learn from history... Congratulations on your immigration to the United States. There was no nation here per se when the original settlers came here. And they did indeed come here for FREEDOM. Religious freedom, and freedom from excessive taxes. Also, your contention that towns were pre-existing, and set up by the indians is hilariously inaccurate. Are you a product of the modern american education system? Your history is way screwed up too...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ginnyfizz Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 Exactly, I thought that the Native American peoples did not live in towns as such and, in any case, had a completely different view on the concept of property and land as opposed to the ideals of the European Settlers.Settlers = patriarchal society with a conception of individual property rightsNative Americans = matrilineal society with a conception of land held in common for the benefit of the tribe as a whole. That's a bit of a simplification, and there were undoubtedly crimes perpetrated against the Native Americans, however it does go some way to explaining why saying that their land was stolen is ALSO an over simplification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurielius Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 (edited) @redworldDefine "founded". It would be rather bold of you to make the claim that what the Indians had here just simply didn't count.Also, the people who came here were not ever seeking freedom, the people who came here were seeking fortune; Gold and Slaves. America wasn't founded on the sweat and blood of immigrants either. People who moved westward had this habit of only settling on the towns already settled by Native Americans, of note where people would come across the fields of natives who had since been annihilated. That's why so many towns are named after "fields," such as "Springfield". The land had already been developed. We have a much worse history than most people know. And you know what they say about people who don't learn from history... Congratulations on your immigration to the United States.It seems revisionist history is your forte, please cite the name and location of these 'towns' west of the Mississippi, the plains Indians were nomadic and moved with the game and the seasons. If you had cited the Cherokee you might have been on safer ground but as it is your facts are simply wrong. The only portion you got correct is that our treatment of the Indians was less than honorable but then again I come from a state that dealt fairly with it's indigenous population of Indian tribes and never fought an Indian War (Pennsylvania). It seems that the only thing worse than people that do not learn form the lessons of history are the ones that don't know it accurately. Edited August 25, 2011 by Aurielius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
draconix Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 (edited) If you think Americans will be enough, then I think you underestimate the size of our debt. There wasn't "a nation" here before, there were several smaller ones. There wouldn't have been the buildings that one might see in a colonial town, to be sure. However the land had been developed. Earth had been moved, trees cleared. Farmland doesn't occur naturally in the wild, it is developed, and is a pain in the ass. Of course this is not to say that nobody has developed their own fields since then, that would be pretty ridiculous. However I think we give our settlers a little too much credit, and give the natives of the land, far too little. I was a product of the American education system, and thought of our history much as you did. The history taught in American schools isn't really what one could call "American History" so much as "American Propaganda". It's terribly inaccurate, wrong in some points and deceitful in others. Edit:I was wondering when someone would bring up the word "nomad". Natives had summer and winter settlements, and usually returned to the same grounds, because certain grounds were considered "holy". How could this be considered any more "nomadic" than the settlers who sailed hundreds of miles from their home-land? Edited August 25, 2011 by draconix Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greywaste Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 How could this be considered any more "nomadic" than the settlers who sailed hundreds of miles from their home-land?Ermm, because they weren't planning on going back? I'd give up on this strain if I were you, your credibility has taken a pretty major hit. :biggrin: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now