Was America founded on terrorism?

[sao123]

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: PingSpike
You mean like the terror bombing campaigns against german and japanese cities during WWII?

I'm sorry, but this is my definition of terrorism: Something your enemy does to try and win war. I particularly like how so many some how sugar coat warfare but if the term terrorism is thrown around its "Oh my god! We'd never do that!" They are both acts of brutality, just with different rule sets. You can argue whether the united states' handling of native americans was or wasn't terrorism all day if you like, but regardless it was awful and shameful.

Please, I am not trying to say war is good and terrorism is bad, I am trying to explain why there is a need for both terms. Your military advisor says 1 of 2 things to you: "Let's bomb that factory because it is making tanks and it's destruction will give us the leverage we need in combat" and "Let's bomb that school because it will kill hundreds of children, breaking morale of the parents". Yes of course these terms get muddy when you start talking about Nukes or carpet bombing but that does not mean a clear distinction in thought process is not present.

People are comparing the Boston Tea Party to terrorism. I think that is wrong. If you want to compare the nuke to terrorism, go right ahead.

As long as there is the possibility of recalling civilian reserves or a military draft...
Civilian population is just as much a target of war as a tank factory...
its just a human resource, rather than a mechanical one.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: maddogchen
Canada must have been founded on terrorism too.

I find it stupid how people label just about anything terrorism now. And they always seem to point at America. :disgust:
How bout the Romans? Mongols? Spanish? Russians? Egyptians? Japanese?
How they point out things in war and go "oh thats terrorism!" Any they always only point at Americans. Do you hear people talking relabeling the Nazi war machine as the Nazi terrorist machine? no. But they do to the Americans, even though the Nazis did far worse.

Leave this crap in P&N.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe he is using America as an example because he's American? I lol'd.

 

[Injury]

Originally posted by: Aharami

Originally posted by: maddogchen
Oh NOES!!

P&N come to terrorize offtopic

:Q

history isnt news

But this is a matter of politics.

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat

Originally posted by: Aharami

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
The people who scalped people were terrorists.

oh america the great...can do no wrong, right?
do some research. you'll find that the american military in the 1800's committed govt sanctioned genocide agaisnt the native americans.

i cant believe people are so blind to america's history

I dont disagree with you. It happened on both sides. But why turn a blind eye to scalping?

It did not happen on both sides. There were minor incidents of Native aggression towards the conquering Europeans and I don't blame them one bit for that. If you live somewhere and someone comes to your property without approval, I would get upset too. But since the Natives treat the earth with respect and they share the soil, they let the Europeans do what they want. The more they give, the more they want. The Europeans had the tools and the experience to carry out genocide, but Native people had neither. Do not equate the two.

Don't let your hatred of the white man blind you...Indians were just as savagely brutal towards each other as the Europeans were. It wasn't all peace, love and happiness until the Europeans showed up.

LOL, so presenting facts about what happened suddenly makes me a hater of whites?

Indians had wars with each other, they did not target entire populations and murder them.

Oh, really?

 

[Tom]

I voted no, but not because we didn't commit atrocities or what could be called terrorist acts.

But because those atrocities were not fundamental to the "founding" of our nation.

 

[Aharami]

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Uhhh, you've watched too many old movies if you think the Indians were primarily the ones responsible for most of the scalpings going on. While some people believe that the practice was introduced by Europeans, it wasn't. But, Europeans were responsible for the majority of the scalpings going on. There were bounties being paid for Indian scalps. Most of the scalping of Europeans by Indians was done in retaliation. If not the Europeans doing the scalping, it was other Indian tribes who were encouraged by the Europeans to scalp their enemies. As soon as both sides had greatly weakened each other, thanks to the Europeans, the Europeans went in and completed the job.

Here's just one article of many... do a little googling. here

I agree, the Indians werent wholly innocent. Not in the least. Sure they were screwed on a couple of land deals, but hey that happens everyday. I still dont understand why they dont have to pay taxes on the billions their casinos make? They are Americans right?

How are the Indians at fault? Was it their fault that the British robbed their home, infected them with disease, destroyed nature, killed their tribes and ruined their lives?

Manifest destiny. America had to stretch from sea to shining sea. Integrate or be integrated. Reistance was futile for the Indians and some had to die to understand that.

Heres a tissue and a pat on the back. Its going to be ok. The Indians are thriving and prospering now. In fact tribal lands dont pay taxes, get free benefits and are a protected minority group in charge of large swaths of land where they now practice 'sovereignty'. They also charge exorbitant tax free sums (recently quadrupled or quintipled due to skyrocketing nat gas) for rights or way. Anything else?

wow. just wow!
so in your mind, the native americans brought on their own death by resisting american takeover....sheesh. no point in having a discussion with such a narrow minded person as you.

 

[Injury]

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
:thumbsdown:
Terrorism is just killing for killings sake. It serves no particular purpose. So no.

???
Terrorism is violence against innocents to achieve a political goal.

No its not.

Care to elaborate?
It's about instilling fear in a populance. Do what we say and the fear/violence goes away. How is not?

ter·ror·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm)
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.


If you're going to argue the meaning of the word isn't it just easier to look it up? 😉

By definition, I'd be comfortable saying that anything up until the point where the constitution was written could be considered terrorism. After the constitution, America became a nation and defending that nation from the Brittish was no longer "unlawful"

I also think it's important to mention that just because the word "terrorism" is a very negative term in society, doesn't mean it should be viewed in a negative light. Destroying hundreds of crates of tea over outrageous taxes is not the same as flying planes into buildings and killing thousands with seemingly no purpose.

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: Linflas
This thread is just one big circle jerk of historical relativism with rare small dollops of historical accuracy.

Indeed.

Show us some accuracy then?

Show us how some of the stuff that has been said in this thread is not true.

Ok lets start with your OP:

When you consider when the first Europeans came here and had encounters with the Native Americans. And when the Puritans came here to purify the land for Christianity. Their interaction with the Natives was peaceful at first, mainly due to self interest on both sides. But the disease they carried killed much of the Native American population and then as greed took over, the British basically killed off much of the population of the local tribes. They did this so they could support their increasing populations. This is simplified due to space and time constraints.

People often say that America was founded on freedom, tolerance and acceptance. To me, that is true, but for the white man. Where was the freedom and tolerance for the Native Americans and slaves later on? Is that not terrorism?

The puritans did not come "here to purify the land for Christianity", they came here to practice their form of religion without persecution from the Church of England. The Indians were already well aware of Europeans by the time the Pilgrims arrived since the British had established a colony in Jamestown in 1607 not to mention the Spanish and Portuguese conquests and colonization activites that had been ongoing since 1492. It is laughable that you think that anyone in the 17th century was aware of how disease was caused and spread. That disease took such a toll on native populations was due to their non-exposure to the new diseases and even the basic steps necessary to prevent the spread of them.

As for "People often say that America was founded on freedom, tolerance and acceptance. To me, that is true, but for the white man. Where was the freedom and tolerance for the Native Americans and slaves later on? Is that not terrorism?" slavery in British North America came about as an unfortunate byproduct of the indenture system. The first blacks brought to Jamestown in 1619 were indentured servants just like indentured whites at that time and they worked side by side in servitude and were released at the end of their term of indenture. Go read about it here.. The relativism comes in when you try to apply 21st century morality and thinking to 17th century people.

 

[Amused]

Declaration of Independence declared the sovereignty of the US. Not the Constitution.

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: sao123
As long as there is the possibility of recalling civilian reserves or a military draft...
Civilian population is just as much a target of war as a tank factory...
its just a human resource, rather than a mechanical one.

Hey, you can justify killing civilians any way you like.

 

[AMCRambler]

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter...

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Aharami

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Uhhh, you've watched too many old movies if you think the Indians were primarily the ones responsible for most of the scalpings going on. While some people believe that the practice was introduced by Europeans, it wasn't. But, Europeans were responsible for the majority of the scalpings going on. There were bounties being paid for Indian scalps. Most of the scalping of Europeans by Indians was done in retaliation. If not the Europeans doing the scalping, it was other Indian tribes who were encouraged by the Europeans to scalp their enemies. As soon as both sides had greatly weakened each other, thanks to the Europeans, the Europeans went in and completed the job.

Here's just one article of many... do a little googling. here

I agree, the Indians werent wholly innocent. Not in the least. Sure they were screwed on a couple of land deals, but hey that happens everyday. I still dont understand why they dont have to pay taxes on the billions their casinos make? They are Americans right?

How are the Indians at fault? Was it their fault that the British robbed their home, infected them with disease, destroyed nature, killed their tribes and ruined their lives?

Manifest destiny. America had to stretch from sea to shining sea. Integrate or be integrated. Reistance was futile for the Indians and some had to die to understand that.

Heres a tissue and a pat on the back. Its going to be ok. The Indians are thriving and prospering now. In fact tribal lands dont pay taxes, get free benefits and are a protected minority group in charge of large swaths of land where they now practice 'sovereignty'. They also charge exorbitant tax free sums (recently quadrupled or quintipled due to skyrocketing nat gas) for rights or way. Anything else?

wow. just wow!
so in your mind, the native americans brought on their own death by resisting american takeover....sheesh. no point in having a discussion with such a narrow minded person as you.

Yup, in Felix's mind it was ok to butcher millions either blatently or through deceit (smallpox blankets) because of "manifest destiny". He would advocate such a tactic today, as long as we give the survivors some tax free parcels of desert to inhabit. Clueless.

Manifest destiny and imperialism has a new term today, called "Free Trade". It gives us the right for our companies to practice lawlessness in other countries. Maybe not genocide like back in the day, but the ideal hasn't changed, which is to expand our borders. Reminiscent of the smallpox blankets, act like you're trying to help them but have ulterior motives.

 

[Lizardman]

Originally posted by: Aharami

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
The people who scalped people were terrorists.

oh america the great...can do no wrong, right?
do some research. you'll find that the american military in the 1800's committed govt sanctioned genocide agaisnt the native americans.

i cant believe people are so blind to america's history

Go watch Tom Cruise in the Last Samurai if you dont believe it. No sarcaism.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Yup, in Felix's mind it was ok to butcher millions either blatently or through deceit (smallpox blankets)

You can self hate and argue that whites are evil all day long, but spreading myths to do it is absurd.

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_066.html

The fact is, there are no verified accounts of any successful attempt to intentionally spread smallpox. This myth grew from one exchenge discussing the idea, and nothing else.

Finally, we didn't NEED to give them blankets to infect them. We just needed to interact with them. It could have just as easily gone the other way had the Indians been infected with a disease we had no immunity to.

In other words, the smallpox deaths among the indians was a complete accident of nature.

 

[AznAnarchy99]

Originally posted by: Playmaker

Originally posted by: raildogg
When you consider when the first Europeans came here and had encounters with the Native Americans. And when the Puritans came here to purify the land for Christianity. Their interaction with the Natives was peaceful at first, mainly due to self interest on both sides. But the disease they carried killed much of the Native American population and then as greed took over, the British basically killed off much of the population of the local tribes. They did this so they could support their increasing populations. This is simplified due to space and time constraints.

People often say that America was founded on freedom, tolerance and acceptance. To me, that is true, but for the white man. Where was the freedom and tolerance for the Native Americans and slaves later on? Is that not terrorism?

Most definitely yes.

And, if not your examples, certainly the actions leading up to and including the American Revolution were terrorism.

However, history is written by the victor, and the average American believes whatever they learned in school. That's why you'll get no answers.

QFT, especially the last line

 

[Playmaker]

Originally posted by: Injury

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
:thumbsdown:
Terrorism is just killing for killings sake. It serves no particular purpose. So no.

???
Terrorism is violence against innocents to achieve a political goal.

No its not.

Care to elaborate?
It's about instilling fear in a populance. Do what we say and the fear/violence goes away. How is not?

ter·ror·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm)
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.


If you're going to argue the meaning of the word isn't it just easier to look it up? 😉

By definition, I'd be comfortable saying that anything up until the point where the constitution was written could be considered terrorism. After the constitution, America became a nation and defending that nation from the Brittish was no longer "unlawful"

I also think it's important to mention that just because the word "terrorism" is a very negative term in society, doesn't mean it should be viewed in a negative light. Destroying hundreds of crates of tea over outrageous taxes is not the same as flying planes into buildings and killing thousands with seemingly no purpose.

The WTC disaster was a symbolic strike against capitalism. That's the perceived evil for the individuals involved, just as those involved in the Boston Tea Party held taxes and British rule as the perceived evil.

In a time when individual civilian lives were much less valued, but trade with one's colonies were comparatively integral, the Boston Tea Party went a long way in instilling fear in British society, which was the desired effect. That's terrorism, plain and simple.

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: Playmaker

Originally posted by: Injury

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
:thumbsdown:
Terrorism is just killing for killings sake. It serves no particular purpose. So no.

???
Terrorism is violence against innocents to achieve a political goal.

No its not.

Care to elaborate?
It's about instilling fear in a populance. Do what we say and the fear/violence goes away. How is not?

ter·ror·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm)
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.


If you're going to argue the meaning of the word isn't it just easier to look it up? 😉

By definition, I'd be comfortable saying that anything up until the point where the constitution was written could be considered terrorism. After the constitution, America became a nation and defending that nation from the Brittish was no longer "unlawful"

I also think it's important to mention that just because the word "terrorism" is a very negative term in society, doesn't mean it should be viewed in a negative light. Destroying hundreds of crates of tea over outrageous taxes is not the same as flying planes into buildings and killing thousands with seemingly no purpose.

The WTC disaster was a symbolic strike against capitalism. That's the perceived evil for the individuals involved, just as those involved in the Boston Tea Party held taxes and British rule as the perceived evil.

In a time when individual civilian lives were much less valued, but trade with one's colonies were comparatively integral, the Boston Tea Party went a long way in instilling fear in British society, which was the desired effect. That's terrorism, plain and simple.

Bullsh!t! The only thing that was injured in the Boston Tea Party was British pride and 3 cargo ship loads of tea. I bet the average Englishman reading about it a month after the event happened did nothing more than mutter about bloody cheeky colonials.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: Lizardman

Originally posted by: Aharami

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
The people who scalped people were terrorists.

oh america the great...can do no wrong, right?
do some research. you'll find that the american military in the 1800's committed govt sanctioned genocide agaisnt the native americans.

i cant believe people are so blind to america's history

Go watch Tom Cruise in the Last Samurai if you dont believe it. No sarcaism.

My impressions of the native Amercian genocide question and the United States, I welcome any criticsim or differing opinions.

Sand Creek Massacre- qualifies as genocide, commited by the United States ? Definitely not. The United States attempted to prosecute those responsible, not sanction it.

Wounded Knee- genocide ? No. One-sided battle with lots of unnecessary casualties ? Yes.

California territory 1850s- genocide ? Yes. government sponsored ? Yes, local governments and territorial level. United States involvement ? My impression is that the actual United States involvement was to try to stop it on one hand, much of what we know about it comes from US official's reports, and maybe unknowingly support it, financially, by paying militias to do one thing, move natives to reservations, but militias commited genocide in many cases instead.

Trail of Tears- despicable ? Yes. Genocide ? No.

 

[PingSpike]

America was founding on insatiable demand for cheap tea, which the economy ran on at the time. It was the price gouging by big tea and its powerful allies that finally caused our people lead a violent revolt.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: PingSpike
America was founding on insatiable demand for cheap tea, which the economy ran on at the time. It was the price gouging by big tea and its powerful allies that finally caused our people lead a violent revolt.

"Big tea"

LOL!!!

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: PingSpike
America was founding on insatiable demand for cheap tea, which the economy ran on at the time. It was the price gouging by big tea and its powerful allies that finally caused our people lead a violent revolt.

america was founded on landowners wanting to sell their coffee instead of the tea. hence the boston tea party, no tea, americans end up buying coffee instead.

wonder how many of the boston tea party participants were land owners. hmmmm.

 

[thereaderrabbit]

No, because genocide is not terrorism, neither is protest or armed struggle. Terrorism is the act of killing and maiming to have an effect on a larger group.

So in summary, some early Americans were guilty of genocide, protest and armed conflict, but not terrorism (from what I know).

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: thereaderrabbit
No, because genocide is not terrorism, neither is protest or armed struggle. Terrorism is the act of killing and maiming to have an effect on a larger group.

So in summary, some early Americans were guilty of genocide, protest and armed conflict, but not terrorism (from what I know).

Yeah, I agree with this. You can say we did bad things without mislabeling it as terrorism.

Although by the "definition" of terrosim that the media uses today, the British probably would have seen us as terrorists.

I believe we did use tactics that were not acceptable in civilized warfare at that time. That happens in many wars, and eventually those tactics become accepted.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: thereaderrabbit
No, because genocide is not terrorism, neither is protest or armed struggle. Terrorism is the act of killing and maiming to have an effect on a larger group.

So in summary, some early Americans were guilty of genocide, protest and armed conflict, but not terrorism (from what I know).

Yeah, I agree with this. You can say we did bad things without mislabeling it as terrorism.

Although by the "definition" of terrosim that the media uses today, the British probably would have seen us as terrorists.

you mean like calling Iraqi freedom fighters "terrorist"

how are they any different than US Colonials launching guerilla attacks on british soldiers?

 

[Illusions89]

Gah....