1. Who Was More Important: Lincoln or Darwin?

Comment #201814 by BlueButterfly on June 30, 2008 at 9:38 am

yes, silly comparison. I would've chosen Darwin though, influencing the entire world, not just an amnesia-suffering country. Though heralded, Lincoln had his land-grabbing 'manifest destiny' side too, hanging many innocent Dakota Indians the day after signing the emancipation proclamation in order to steal their lands in MN. What Indians did Darwin kill, and what land did Darwin steal?

2. Muslim countries win concession regarding religious debates

Comment #196651 by BlueButterfly on June 20, 2008 at 9:41 am

1. Could I see a source for those numbers? Because I have trouble believing that a tribal system could have supported anything like that number of people

2. Whenever I hear this complaint, I have these flashbacks to my history lessons in Africa where you'd have the Zulus complaining about the 'vicious imperialism of the British' and how it was completely unacceptable. Behind them you'd find the Basotho saying 'nice of you to notice'. And behind them you'd find the Khoikhoi and San saying "Indeed". C.F. the Inca and Aztec track records.

Yes, I was wrong in remembering by a factor of 10. I should have said 9-12 million. Thanks for challenging that, won't make such a blatant error again. I'm guilty of inflated memory for my own fervor. Sorry.

My tribe was in North America for 10,000 years, without getting killed off by weird diseases or wars (Mohicans), there is long term archeological evidence in MA and NY that show many levels of occupation dating back that far. I'm sure many peoples can claim some abuse, but not distracting from the American question, the USA is absolutely guilty of taking over lands that did not belong to us, by killing, torturing, poisoning, and yes, by bacterial warfare against the Native populations.

It is my opinion that the small pox blankets thing is a myth.

http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/amherst/lord_jeff.html Above is another site about the so-called Amherst blanket idea. To me it reads like a consipiracy theory and even the admit no proof.

There's no reason to ad hoc doubt this explanation. The fact is that America very much wants to forget about anything to do with its genocidal beginnings, and if one wants to find out about it, it involves heavy searching. If there's a hint of germ warfare mentioned, it is more likely just the surface of a policy actually carried out. Authors to read would be Jack Forbes and Louise Erdrich on this subject.

ADDED: not to troll way from the subject into American Indian issues, but my larger point was that the USA has a very poor track record when it comes to honoring treaties. It's easy to see by just looking in our own backyard.

3. Muslim countries win concession regarding religious debates

Comment #196603 by BlueButterfly on June 20, 2008 at 7:48 am

At least we're open about our refusal to participate in SOME international treaties. Other countries just sign along and then privately throw them in the toilet.

Actually, America is founded on genocide. We forced the indigenous populations into many "treaties" and then broke every single one of them, while watching 90-120 million of them die off. So, I'd say we do not have a good track record for being the mythic 'shining city upon a hill.' Treaties have meant very little to the USA if we look at our own historical record.