so in the wake of thanksgiving festivities
 

its time to discuss the pillaging of the natives

on facebook and other social media outlets i'm sure we've all been inundated again with the whole christopher columbus was an asshole, white people committed genocide, blah blah we "stole" this country and all that other apologist soft talk.

how come people pick and choose what to be mad at.

whites conquered north america. what devils! they also conquered europe. no one cries for the celts. is it because its so far removed? how far must we travel in history before the conquest of north america is seen as a glorious act, bringing civilization to a savage land, instead of some barbarous notion that we murdered a bunch of less capable people?

but wait, there was TREACHERY! the white man made promises and broke them!

no shit. thats what we do. when caesar was conquering gaul his tactics mirrored what the whites in america did.

he would befriend X tribe to help in the fight of Y tribe. once Y tribe was defeated X tribe would get worried like hey maybe we shouldnt have dont that, so then X tribe gets with Z tribe to fight rome and avenge Y tribe. then they get defeated

same shit in the americas. when a native leader would try to unite the tribes like vercingetorix they would be defeated.

if you view the conquest of north america as some heinous act committed by murderers you have the mind of a child.

I just dislike the way the USA, as well as the UK, hold themselves up as these great peace bringers and moral authorities, when their history as well as current day activities suggest otherwise.

That is what pisses me off...but of course, many nations have committed great atrocities, including those you mentioned. That doesn't make the actions of the USA any less atrocious, it just shows life is not black and white, and unfortunately for all the wealth and power America has, people have to die. America is by no means alone in this...but America is the worst for trying to look like the white knight while raping the princess.

But dat princess pussy so much better wen u take it by force

And btw it was a heinous act committed by murderers....but you are right in saying that is how all great nations were built.

I agree with you, I also think you're dangerously callous in your dismissal of the atrocities committed.

My question to you - Given your stance on this, are ISIS justified in their attempt at domination of the West. Arent they just following in our footsteps? Are we hypocritical to label them as evil? Judging by your viewpoints they are not.

This makes me look at Super Mario in a very different light.

Word witty but thats all a part of the plan. If nations viewed america strictly as a conquering powerhouse set on controlling other nations to exploit there resources for their own personal gain it wouldnt work

Caesar was not only working in the interest of rome but also appearing to worm in the interest of the downtrodden of the tribes he was fighting so he c I uld levy troops from them exlloit there resources and further empower his own agendas. Im on my phine pooping so excuse fat thumb typos.

Right now american foreign policy works in the same way in largely tribal societies in the middle east. If you look at afghanistan for example the taliban is easily the largest most powerful force in the region so america backs a make believe afghanistan security force they installed made up of the people the taliban stepped on to gain power. Right now they are the auxillary army employed by rome to hold co trol of the region so it can be used by merica. Every now and then they need help from america and america bombs the fuck out of the Place hitting the wrong shit. But hey throughout history civilians die. Romans would put the torch to a whole village if they were supporting the opposition. They would apologise to their "allies" and be like hey we had intel the enemy was there. Our bad.

Its war.

Same shit with isis. We even have another world power involved its alot like spain during the punic wars. Carthage held control of the regions tribes and employed them alongside their troops in the fight of rome. When rome made strides in the region they levied their own spanish to fight carthage

In syria you have russia playing the role of carthage helping the established "king" keep his position while america and the EU are funding and backing rebels to destabilize the region all the while both are pretending to fight a force called isis

My main point is its business as usual. Tou can live your life hoping for peace and happiness but as im sure some ancient dude said with weird ancient grammar peace is had by the sword

There will never be complete peace, ever, human nature dictates it is impossible.

I just don't place as much of an emphasis on power as I think you do, I would rather we fought in defence when we had to, and not in offense because we want to. I say 'We' as in the allied forces. I think it is a case of 'if we don't do it, somebody else will, and then they'll crush us'...I have long ago decided War is based as much on paranoia as anything else. Not baseless paranoia tho, probably quite justified. You're honestly right in a lot of ways, it is a shame though that if we committed to peace, we would probably be crushed, because just because we are committed to it, doesn't mean others will be. It's a vicious cycle with no end in sight.

absolutely, but im a weirdo who believes "evil" is make believe. its all based upon a set of moralities put in place by people. there is no good or evil. there just IS.

isis is justified in the sense they have a set of beliefs they believe others should adhere too, the same way you have a set of beliefs that you believe others should adhere too.

the only person who is right, is the conquerer.

you want peace love and happiness, and rights for women and gays.

they want peace love and happiness, and the degradation of women, and the persecution of gays, and etc.


who is to say who is right?

you were raised in a society that molded your beliefs to make it SEEM evil to persecute gays and women and everything you think is wrong, when they were raised in a society that is opposite.

you both have strength and natural feelings built towards those ideas from a lifetime of reinforcement from the society you live in.

what we view as right isn't absolutely right. its what we BELIEVE is right.

quit wit yer jiving...turkey.


dern yanks dunno what the freak yer talkin bout

I also believe 'evil' does not really exist.

What is considered evil changes over time and differs from culture to culture....therefore is a man made concept.

but hey bros

i'm gonna go to my mothers now and eat a shitty turkey with fake mashed potato's and pretend to enjoy it

i'm thankful for the whitemen who genocided the natives so that i can have 2 thanksgivings a year.

bring on the chocolate peanut butter pudding pie with graham cracker crusttttttt

barbaric conquest has always been as such, barbaric
there's no honor in it, nor has there ever been
but yeah, the fact that it's also the latest such conquest in history, probably gives it undeserved attention
but, there is nothing to be lauded in killing, pillaging and theft

Another question - when will America fall?

Because it will fall, whether in 10 years or 1000 years....all great nations do, and the USA won't be an exception. How? Why? When? And who will take over?

Also, how fucked will the peoples of America and and allied countries be, when this happens?

Hint: The answer to the last question js 'very'

But uh oh they raped the engines bro.

Unforgivable cuz

when?
I dunno
why?
because of the gap in wealth among the top and bottom

writers

one of the more coherent, less dumb posts from Pharaoh's Army. bravo

thats not really what i am saying. if somehow the incompetent fanatical forces of isis took over the world, conquered the west and installed sharia law or some shit, they would be right. not because of some moral standing or whatever. but because they would be in control, so they would dictate what is right or wrong.

the hbo tv show rome, had a dope line. its a tv show but it resonates. julius caesar was visiting egypt securing grain shipments to feed the impoverished of rome. the then pharaoh/king kid or whatever disagreed with something, and said something to the effect of, "thats roman law" in the sense of this is egypt we have different laws. but caesar simply replied "is there any other?"

basically stating roman law is all there is. egypt was their vassal state. they can make laws all they want, but roman law is all that mattered.

its basically like that.

its not saying that morally they are right, but realistically they have the RIGHT to install whatever systems they see as right, because they have the power and control to enforce it

without arguing the semantics of words like barbaric (i'm assuming you mean savages and not the literal definition of barbarians) i would claim you are wrong

its only wrong to the vanquished.

the "barbaric" conquests of rome were celebrated by triumphs, massive parades throughout the roman capitol, feasts and partying and usually punctuated by the public execution of members of the defeated enemy. there was no higher honor rome afforded then a triumph, and you only got one if you really fucked a people up in the name of your country

but rome was a civilized nation, if we go to more barbaric nations, and even later down the timeline, like the vikings for example. after they would murk shit they would be honored upon there arrival home

basically you are looking at the world with a new modern take. that viewpoint is very new based on world history. i blame the world wars and vietnam.

prior to the world wars, war itself was a much less bloody affair. and entire war could be won in a single battle between 40,000 guys to each side. the losing side might only lose 10,000 men, have 10,000 captured and enslaved, and 20,000 fleeing to safety. war over.

meanwhile the world wars hundreds of thousands would die in every single assault.

while the world wars brought casualty rates to insane heights, then you get a war like vietnam which is televised, and the "civilized" (soft) people at home got to see the ferocity and savagery of war, and became moralistically against it thanks to hippies

but my main point is your post is inherently wrong. throughout history there was always something to be lauded in killing, pillaging, and theft, as long as it benefitted YOUR NATION.

you know these are two very different ideas, right?

he must think good is make-believe too, then
which means nothing would be inherently right or wrong
I don't necessarily believe that
I don't believe in good and evil as forces that exist outside of man
but, I think they are identifiable inside of man's psyche

Lol oats never seen uh oh debate tactics in action

didn't read whole thread

assuming off what I did read, and the fact that uh oh wrote it, this is a "white ppl rule get over it" thread?

An he also goes into his usual weird Roman empire comparisons too lol

To begin with good and evil are completely relative thus there is not now, nor will there ever be, an answer to this question.

Secondly I would point out that 'good' and 'evil' exist in all of us, relative to our own sense of the words.

Our actions on the 'good' and 'evil' in us are provoked by any (and every) influence (and action) that surrounds us.

and the circle of life is complete

Absolutely. In the context i used them though nothing was wrong.

I dont believe in good or evil. Things just are.

Pharoah attached his view of isis being evil to the conversation saying it wouldnt be right if they took over because they are evil. But it would be right. Because it happened. There are no rights for the defeated.

You make an argument...

Pharoahe rebuts it...

You contend his point by making a completely different argument...

But...

Nvm. Not gonna do it. Carry on.

Maybe you should read it again? I didnt change my point at all.

Isis would be in the right whether he believes they are morally right or not. Because they won. Where is the difference in my argument?

For real though @uh-oh your beats are dope.

Oats enlighten me on where i am wrong here. Dont take the coward route. Ill admit im wrong if you can point it out.

Where did i change tact/argue something different?

You said no such thing as good and evil. Pharoahe said there is, and while there are some gray areas, there are innate human senses of morality. Your response was "might makes right" and that cultures have different concepts of morality etc. it didn't engage with his argument, you made an irrelevant point to what he was saying. If anything, you're saying that morality is culturally subjective, not that it doesn't exist. I get where you're conflating the two, but conflation is what it is

I think he basically just means the definition of evil is not set in stone....something evil to us may be normal to other cultures. There is definitely a sense of basic right and wrong in all of us, but when it comes to what is evil...it's hard to say what is evil, even by our own standards. Murder is evil? According to our society it is, but given many murderers have mental health problems, can they really be called evil?

That's why I agreed it doesn't really exist, although basic human morality shared by the majority of us worldwide definitely exists, and those who go against it are in the wrong whether they are victorious or not.

was hitler a bad guy?

Thanks oats. All the coherence in your old UFC article must have rubbed off on me.

@uh-oh

I see now a bit more what you mean by clarifying/somewhat revising what I had quoted from you.
I also am not a fan of the overly simplistic "good vs. evil" paradigms.

And, at the risk of appearing to overly "hedge", I just want to be clear that I also do not think the Israeli shelling of Lebanon a decade ago, &the violent invasion of Gaza more recently-- I also do not think these are "good" for the well-being of humans. They are bad. Very bad; it's like torching and bulldozing your entire house because there a few dangerous wasps in it. (Funded and armed with the major help of the US gov't I might add).

But simply by elaborating on such things, I am basically falling into the "trap" or "construct" of "the West" vs. "Them"-- the very construct which the religious whackos want to frame everything. So I guess that's bad too but it's an easier way to explain things.

I am basically just making an argument for moral relativism. Which can be prickly of course, but I truly believe that there are "degrees of right&wrong" which can be starkly objective.

The Ghandi nonviolent resistance for India's independence, to me seems a rightful cause... again, for the health&well-being of humans living there.
Now, the British Empire may have strongly disagreed; and said our well-being is helped by territory, goods, power, and profit...
And yes, until their Independence, what Britain Said...Went.. so to speak. I see that part of the argument you're trying to make. Doesn't mean it's right or good. On the sliding scale I feel like Ghandi was more in the right, whether he "won" or "lost" (again to use simplistic terms).

writer etc

word i see what you are saying now, you just misunderstood my point. witty is on the right track

i'm saying good and evil doesnt exist. the group of people that wins sets the standards for what that society deems is good or evil. good and evil doesn't need to be a real thing for people to believe in it. if we all believe it is a good deed to give a homeless person money, that doesn't MAKE it a good deed. we just perceive it to be a good deed. and if we're the only ones perceiving it, we just believe that its right or whatever

so if isis were to conquer the west and install sharia law, they would absolutely be justified or whatever and it would be a good deed to them. whether we deem it good or evil is irrelevant, all that is relevant is what they think because we would be no more.

thats my main point in all of this. but i will take blame in being too illiterate to put my point across. i didnt even realize i was refuting any arguments as much as just stating my own viewpoint

that evil is a figment of our imaginations, and the conquerer is always right. because if you conquer someone, the only viewpoint left is your own as the conquerer

writers

but, conflation...