PDA

View Full Version : Vatican angers Jews through beatification


Tyburn
12-20-2009, 09:17 AM
It looks like The Vatican are considering begging the very long process of making Pope John-Paul 2nd a cannonized Saint. The first step is to get a Pope to sign off on him, thus officially recognising the man and his achievements

HOWEVER

Lets not forget that John-Paul was extremely Liberal, and slightly counter to the theology of the present Pope. When Benedict Signed him off...He ALSO chose to sign off on an unlikely person

Specifing "Heroic Virtues" Benedict 16th decided to sign off on Pope Pius 12th.

aka...the Evil Pope of the World War Two who decided to support Adolf Hitler

Now the way is open, if its so desired, to begin the centuries long process of making two extreme opposites Saints...

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Pope Benedict on Saturday put his wartime predecessor Pope Pius XII, accused by Jews of turning a blind eye to the Holocaust, back on the road to Roman Catholic sainthood.

Jewish groups had asked the pope to freeze the process that could lead to eventual sainthood until more World War Two archives could be studied.

The pope approved a decree on Saturday recognising Pius' "heroic virtues", meaning he will have the title "venerable". It puts Pius two steps away from sainthood. First he must be beatified and then canonised.

Elan Steinberg, vice president of the American Gathering of Jewish Holocaust Survivors and their Descendants, called the decision "profoundly insensitive and thoughtless", coming a day after the site of the Auschwitz death camp was desecrated.

He was referring to Friday's theft of the notorious metal sign above the entrance of the former Nazi death camp that reads "arbeit macht frei" (Work Makes You Free).

"We are left bereft in our feelings," Steinberg told Reuters from New York, adding that it went against private assurances the Vatican had given the Jewish community.

"I am puzzled and concerned by the decision, especially as it seems rather undiplomatic in light of the pending visit of the Pope to the Rome synagogue in three weeks' time," Rabbi David Rosen, International Director of Inter-religious Relations of the American Jewish Committee, told Reuters.

"While it is not the business of the Jewish community to tell the Holy See who its saints are, if the Church claims as it does that it seeks to live with the Jewish community in a relationship of mutual respect, we expect it to take our sensitivities into serious consideration," Rosen said.

Pope Benedict has come under great pressure from both Catholics and Jews over the possible sainthood of Pius.

The Vatican's department that makes saints submitted the heroic virtues decree to the pope in 2007 but he decided not to approve it immediately, opting instead for what the Vatican called a period of reflection.

Some Jews have accused Pius, who reigned from 1939 to 1958, of not doing enough to help Jews, a charge the Vatican denies.

The Vatican maintains that Pius worked quietly behind the scenes because direct interventions might have worsened the situation for both Jews and Catholics in Europe. Many Jews have rejected this position.

Jews have for years been calling on the Vatican to open the archives as soon as possible so they can be studied by scholars and asked Pope Benedict to freeze the process that could make Pius a saint until all the archives could be examined.

"Why the rush to open up the wound again before the opening of the archives?" Abe Foxman, U.S. national director of the Anti-Defamation League, told Reuters from Jerusalem.

Catholic supporters of Pius have been pushing Benedict to speed up the process, while most Jews believe that pushing Pius ahead on the road to sainthood would harm Catholic-Jewish relations.

The possible sainthood of Pius is one of several issues that have strained Catholic-Jewish relations. Benedict's decision to readmit to the Church a bishop who denied the extent of the Holocaust in January also strained ties.

Richard Williamson had said in an interview he believed there were no gas chambers and that no more than 300,000 Jews perished in Nazi concentration camps, rather than the 6 million accepted by most historians.

atomdanger
12-21-2009, 07:55 AM
Jews are REALLY sensitive.
Its a little ridiculous.

Adolf doesn't touch the numbers Mao Tse Tung and Stalin had.
Off the top of my head I would guess that we (whitey) have killed more Native American's than Nazi's killed Jews.

Yet we allow teams like the "Redskins" to exist,
completely insensitive.
Never underestimate hypocrisy.

Would we allow a team with a black guy mascot called the "black skins"
My point is, Jews need to suck it up a little.

Tyburn
12-21-2009, 12:01 PM
Jews are REALLY sensitive.
Its a little ridiculous.

Adolf doesn't touch the numbers Mao Tse Tung and Stalin had.
Off the top of my head I would guess that we (whitey) have killed more Native American's than Nazi's killed Jews.

Yet we allow teams like the "Redskins" to exist,
completely insensitive.
Never underestimate hypocrisy.

Would we allow a team with a black guy mascot called the "black skins"
My point is, Jews need to suck it up a little.


So you think its alright for The Roman Catholic Church to Recognise under a German Pope, the Pope that Collaberated with the Nazis during the war and denies the Holocaust :huh:

I'll tell you what Courageous Virtues would have been. To seal off the Vatican State and tell Adolf Hitler where to go. It would of course have meant martyrdom and the obliteration of Central Rome, if not by Hitler, then by the Italians...That is how one should be cannonized for Courage.

Not supporting Evil, in order to keep your position in a Church that is supposed to be representing Christ. There were a few really evil Popes...he is definately one of them...or do you think the Romans should make Saints out of the Whole lot of them? Perhaps we should suggest to Benedict that he consider the whole German Cabinate...and lets throw in the Japanese for Good measure...after all, they had so many couragous Virtues it took TWO Nuclear bombs to stop them.


Meanwhile...Benedict says he's trying to establish firm links with the Jewish Community...he's going to visit their central Roman Synagog in a few weeks. If I were them, I'd send a public message to the Vatican to tell Benedict the offer is no longer on the table.

So lets look to Pope Pius the twelfth as our Role Model shall we...

This has little to do with the Jews, and more to do with trying to cannonize someone who for all intense and purposes was a Nazi....oh wait...Ratzinger was a Nazi in his youth...of course he was...so of course he wouldnt see no problem with it.

Honnestly...that Man needs to go.

NateR
12-21-2009, 04:57 PM
Jews are REALLY sensitive.
Its a little ridiculous.

Adolf doesn't touch the numbers Mao Tse Tung and Stalin had.
Off the top of my head I would guess that we (whitey) have killed more Native American's than Nazi's killed Jews.

Yet we allow teams like the "Redskins" to exist,
completely insensitive.
Never underestimate hypocrisy.

Would we allow a team with a black guy mascot called the "black skins"
My point is, Jews need to suck it up a little.

Anti-Semitism is on a rise across the world. The nation of Israel is surrounded by enemies who only want their eradication. Plus, we still have survivors from the most recent systematic extermination of the Jewish people alive today. I'd say that they have good reason to be sensitive.

Plus, the Native-American situation is a very bad comparison. Especially considering how the history of those conflicts is being continually rewritten to demonize the white settlers and victimize the Indians. You've clearly bought into the revisionist historical propaganda. We actually did everyone a favor by destroying some of those Native-American tribes.

Tyburn
12-21-2009, 07:19 PM
We actually did everyone a favor by destroying some of those Native-American tribes.
No you didnt.

but the point is...noone from that Era is being put forward as a Saint.

The Evil Pope is. He should NEVER be even considered.

My Gran met him. When he was a Cardinal a couple of years before the war for some reason He came to visit her boarding school, she was brought up in a Roman Catholic Boarding School. Anyway, she was running in the corridors (which was not permitted) turned a corner too fast and ploughed right into Him :laugh: Mother Superior made her kiss his ring...of course :mellow:

She remembers that day well, because a few years later he was Ellected as Pope by Conclave...and almost directly sided with Germany

He even LOOKS Evil :ninja:

http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/8622/250pxpacelli12.jpg (http://img69.imageshack.us/i/250pxpacelli12.jpg/)

The rise of the Evil Pope is absolutely Tragic considering his Predecessor by the same name, Pius, came to reject openly Germany AND Italy, for Racism, and Nazi Fascism

Pope Benedict Fifteenth dies 1922 (Declared Vatican Neutral in WW1)
Pope Pius Eleventh dies 1939...BUT in 1933 when Adolf Hitler becomes Chancellor of Germany, Adolf asks the Vatican for a Treaty, and the person who bartered the Treaty directly with Germany would become the Evil Pope! in 1936 Pope Pius writes to Adolf Hitler with concerns. Adolf Hitler ignores him. So Pius writes an Encyclical specifically AGAINST the Nazi Party. It was smuggled into Germany so the Christians could preach it. He asked the Rest of Europe for Help...but they ignored him. He called it "Conspiracy of Silence" in 1938 The Pope pleads with the Italians not to introduce the same kinds of laws that Germany had already done against his wishes. They ignore him. He has a set of heart attacks, and he never recovers. He penned his last encyclical as he lay dying which was a full frontal attack on Nationalism and Anti-Sematism...but died before it was published. Its obvious he regretted ever making any treaty with Germany...but like so many other World Leaders, he was conned into believing, like the entire German people, like Neville Chamberlin, that Adolf Hitler would be good for Germany, and good for Europe...and by the time they realized what Adolf actually was, it was too late for the lot of them.

:cry:

His Replacement, was Pope Pius Twelefth, who stopped the publishing, tweaked it a tad so as not to be too offensive to Adolf Hitler et al...and published it under his own bloody name.

Tyburn
12-21-2009, 07:25 PM
nevermind. lol

Jonlion
12-21-2009, 08:36 PM
There is no way this person should be canonized and I am sad to see the Pope evenn thinking about it.

However the current Pope was in the Hitler Youth and probably had no real choice in the matter. I am sure he does not endorse any Nazi actions.

But before people pile in, none of us can sit here and truly say how we would act being a citizen of Nazi Germany.

Also, Nate, your words are usually wise and wel thought out. The comment about doing the world a favour by destroying some of those Native American tribes is a load of old tripe.

NateR
12-21-2009, 08:45 PM
No you didnt.


Just read the history on the Cheyenne, Souix, Apache, Blackfoot, Comanche, and Pequot tribes. These were extremely violent tribes that were just as dangerous to their fellow Native Americans as they were to white settlers. Like the Mayans and Aztecs, the world is better off without these cultures.

Jonlion
12-21-2009, 09:16 PM
Just read the history on the Cheyenne, Souix, Apache, Blackfoot, Comanche, and Pequot tribes. These were extremely violent tribes that were just as dangerous to their fellow Native Americans as they were to white settlers. Like the Mayans and Aztecs, the world is better off without these cultures.

Thats exactly what a Islamic extremist is saying about the western world

NateR
12-21-2009, 09:26 PM
Thats exactly what a Islamic extremist is saying about the western world

When it's actually the other way around. :laugh:

Crisco
12-21-2009, 09:34 PM
When it's actually the other way around. :laugh:

This I agree with lol

However, I have to say that the Native Americans would never have been a threat to white settelers if we didn't come over here and try and take their land lol.

We took advantage of these people and nearly killed off their entire race.

I'm not saying I wish we never came here and took it over I'med just saying that it was ****ed up what we did.

As horrible as some of these cultures may have been it was THEIR culture. Yes we conquered the land thus laid claim but it doesn't make it any better lol.

Miss Foxy
12-21-2009, 09:38 PM
:applause:This I agree with lol

However, I have to say that the Native Americans would never have been a threat to white settelers if we didn't come over here and try and take their land lol.

We took advantage of these people and nearly killed off their entire race.

I'm not saying I wish we never came here and took it over I'med just saying that it was ****ed up what we did.

As horrible as some of these cultures may have been it was THEIR culture. Yes we conquered the land thus laid claim but it doesn't make it any better lol.

NateR
12-21-2009, 09:42 PM
This I agree with lol

However, I have to say that the Native Americans would never have been a threat to white settelers if we didn't come over here and try and take their land lol.

We took advantage of these people and nearly killed off their entire race.

I'm not saying I wish we never came here and took it over I'med just saying that it was ****ed up what we did.

As horrible as some of these cultures may have been it was THEIR culture. Yes we conquered the land thus laid claim but it doesn't make it any better lol.

Well, you're looking at it through over a century of revisionist history. Some Native-American tribes welcomed us and had no problems with the settlers living here. In fact, without the help of many of those tribes, the early settlers would never have survived long enough to establish the Colonies.

The Puritans were hardly bloodthirsty conquerors.:laugh:

Basically, there were good people and bad people on both sides of the story here and let's just leave it at that.

Crisco
12-21-2009, 09:56 PM
Well, you're looking at it through over a century of revisionist history. Some Native-American tribes welcomed us and had no problems with the settlers living here. In fact, without the help of many of those tribes, the early settlers would never have survived long enough to establish the Colonies.

The Puritans were hardly bloodthirsty conquerors.:laugh:

Basically, there were good people and bad people on both sides of the story here and let's just leave it at that.

Oh no doubt I agree with you.

My point being is those tribes that helped us settle here where are they now? haha.

It's not so revisionist when you look at the cause an effect or even the aftermath and all the reasons why a certain aftermath taxes place.

All Indian tribes that still exist pretty much live on designated land we forced or passive aggressively moved them onto.

The puritans where not really the issue it's those that followed.

The Conquistadors, the French(who had the better relationship with the Indians) and the English colonial settlers who pushed west and south from Plymouth and the surrounded area's treated these tribes like animals who simply needed to be moved in order to make way for progress.

Everyone knows what happens to the bear when it wanders into town and scares people.

rearnakedchoke
12-21-2009, 10:06 PM
Just read the history on the Cheyenne, Souix, Apache, Blackfoot, Comanche, and Pequot tribes. These were extremely violent tribes that were just as dangerous to their fellow Native Americans as they were to white settlers. Like the Mayans and Aztecs, the world is better off without these cultures.

is that what it is called? you can easily make an argument that europeans are by far the most violent people in history ... do you think "settling" and "colonizing" where done with peace and good nature? if you are calling 'natives' violent, what do you call forcing hundreds of thousands of people into boats and be your slaves?

seriously, sometimes the stuff you say is absolute crap

Crisco
12-21-2009, 10:11 PM
is that what it is called? you can easily make an argument that europeans are by far the most violent people in history ... do you think "settling" and "colonizing" where done with peace and good nature? if you are calling 'natives' violent, what do you call forcing hundreds of thousands of people into boats and be your slaves?

seriously, sometimes the stuff you say is absolute crap

To be fair their own people capture them we just bought them hhahaha

rearnakedchoke
12-21-2009, 10:15 PM
To be fair their own people capture them we just bought them hhahaha

well, they tried to catch them first, but weren't fast enough ... so they paid the fastest ones to catch them ... LOL .... if this was today, usain bolt would be even more rich than he is already

NateR
12-21-2009, 10:16 PM
is that what it is called? you can easily make an argument that europeans are by far the most violent people in history ... do you think "settling" and "colonizing" where done with peace and good nature? if you are calling 'natives' violent, what do you call forcing hundreds of thousands of people into boats and be your slaves?

seriously, sometimes the stuff you say is absolute crap

Your making some illogical connections here. We're not even discussing slavery. That's a completely unrelated issue.

One simple question. If the white settlers/colonists/conquerors (whatever you feel like calling them) were so intent on enslaving anyone with dark skin, then why didn't we enslave the Native Americans? It would have been so much cheaper than paying to have slaves shipped all the way from Africa. So, why were the Native Americans NOT forced into slavery?

Do you think that maybe it has something to do with how the events are a little more complicated than the simple-minded (and racist) "all white people are evil" version of history?

rearnakedchoke
12-21-2009, 10:21 PM
Your making some illogical connections here. We're not even discussing slavery. That's a completely unrelated issue.

One simple question. If the white settlers/colonists/conquerors (whatever you feel like calling them) were so intent on enslaving anyone with dark skin, then why didn't we enslave the Native Americans? It would have been so much cheaper than paying to have slaves shipped all the way from Africa. So, why were the Native Americans NOT forced into slavery?

Do you think that maybe it has something to do with how the events are a little more complicated than the simple-minded (and racist) "all white people are evil" version of history?

No, you said it was good that some natives were wiped out ... i am saying that if you are talking about "violent" people, than you should also be saying that europeans fit into that category and should have been killed off too ... which is stupid of course ... natives may have been violent, but they did it in their own land and didn't seek to conquer the world

NateR
12-21-2009, 10:32 PM
No, you said it was good that some natives were wiped out ... i am saying that if you are talking about "violent" people, than you should also be saying that europeans fit into that category and should have been killed off too ... which is stupid of course ... natives may have been violent, but they did it in their own land and didn't seek to conquer the world

So as long as dictator only murders his own people in his own country, then it's acceptable? :blink: So I guess that means that domestic violence and child abuse are okay as long as it only happens in the home of the abuser.

Seriously, though, I'm talking about tribes that regularly attacked neighboring tribes and raped, mutilated, tortured, and murdered with impunity. This was before the Europeans even arrived. I'm also talking about stuff like human sacrifices and cannibalism.

I'm talking about a level of violence that was far above anything the Europeans did.

Tyburn
12-21-2009, 10:44 PM
the world is better off without these cultures.

Funny, isnt that exactly the sort of fascism that Hitler used to try and convince Germany.

I dont uphold the wiping out of any culture based purely on because of who they are. What the Spanish did was massicre those Meso-American Cultures, and it was nasty...what the Americans did to the Natives, was...yes a very similar thing, and it was nasty to.

Tyburn
12-21-2009, 10:45 PM
When it's actually the other way around. :laugh:

But they are still saying it.

Tyburn
12-21-2009, 10:47 PM
However, I have to say that the Native Americans would never have been a threat to white settelers if we didn't come over here and try and take their land lol.

We took advantage of these people and nearly killed off their entire race.

I'm not saying I wish we never came here and took it over I'med just saying that it was ****ed up what we did.

As horrible as some of these cultures may have been it was THEIR culture. Yes we conquered the land thus laid claim but it doesn't make it any better lol.

Agreed. BUT on the flip side. Plenty of other countries have done similar. Nathan mentioning the Meso American Cultures is a prime example. But the Europeans and British have been just as bad

It happens.

but the insitgators should never be praised as Saints.

NateR
12-21-2009, 11:13 PM
Funny, isnt that exactly the sort of fascism that Hitler used to try and convince Germany.

I dont uphold the wiping out of any culture based purely on because of who they are. What the Spanish did was massicre those Meso-American Cultures, and it was nasty...what the Americans did to the Natives, was...yes a very similar thing, and it was nasty to.

Actually, Hitler was about wiping out races, not cultures. Please tell me that you understand the difference between a race and a culture. :rolleyes:

rearnakedchoke
12-21-2009, 11:50 PM
So as long as dictator only murders his own people in his own country, then it's acceptable? :blink: So I guess that means that domestic violence and child abuse are okay as long as it only happens in the home of the abuser.

Seriously, though, I'm talking about tribes that regularly attacked neighboring tribes and raped, mutilated, tortured, and murdered with impunity. This was before the Europeans even arrived. I'm also talking about stuff like human sacrifices and cannibalism.

I'm talking about a level of violence that was far above anything the Europeans did.

i don't know what level of violence has to do with it? weather you are chopping people up and eating them or marching them into gas chambers or starving people to death, murder is murder imo ....

but the klans of scots were violent with each other, they should be wiped off, the english were violent with the scots, there are plenty of tribes in africa that are violent with each other, the south african whites to the south african blacks and now the south african blacks to the south african whites, the chinese to the tibetans .... they should all be wiped out by your way of thinking ...

also, what is murder with impunity? is there murder without impunity?

NateR
12-22-2009, 12:00 AM
i don't know what level of violence has to do with it?

Everything. Do you believe that a man who slaps his wife and a man who stabs his wife and kills her are deserving of the same punishment?

weather you are chopping people up and eating them or marching them into gas chambers or starving people to death, murder is murder imo ....

I can only assume that you're making a reference to the Nazis when you mention the gas chambers. What did we do to the Nazis? Oh yeah, we wiped them off the face of the planet. Any that escaped and are now in hiding are hunted down and brought to trial. Thanks for illustrating my point so perfectly. :)

but the klans of scots were violent with each other, they should be wiped off, the english were violent with the scots, there are plenty of tribes in africa that are violent with each other, the south african whites to the south african blacks and now the south african blacks to the south african whites, the chinese to the tibetans .... they should all be wiped out by your way of thinking ...

No, that's not my way of thinking. That's just your cynical and closed-minded appraisal of what you believe to be my way of thinking. :rolleyes:

So do you just jump to conclusions with everybody or are there instances where you actually try to understand someone who has a different point of view?

also, what is murder with impunity? is there murder without impunity?

"Murder with impunity" is murder without consequences. Just go to an abortion clinic to see a perfect example of this.

So, logically, "murder without impunity" would be murder with consequences, which clearly exists. Our prison system is proof of that.

atomdanger
12-22-2009, 12:59 AM
Anti-Semitism is on a rise across the world. The nation of Israel is surrounded by enemies who only want their eradication. Plus, we still have survivors from the most recent systematic extermination of the Jewish people alive today. I'd say that they have good reason to be sensitive.

Plus, the Native-American situation is a very bad comparison. Especially considering how the history of those conflicts is being continually rewritten to demonize the white settlers and victimize the Indians. You've clearly bought into the revisionist historical propaganda. We actually did everyone a favor by destroying some of those Native-American tribes.

Who did we do a favor to?
White people who were stealing land? lol
Certainly not Native American's.

We invaded, and killed.
You can church it up to sound however you need to,
but facts are facts, whites slaughtered native americans, period.

It certainly is not a bad comparison,
every time a jew gets slandered its all over the news,
but natives can be made a mockery of and its fine.
Its hypocrisy.

NateR
12-22-2009, 02:03 AM
Who did we do a favor to?
White people who were stealing land? lol
Certainly not Native American's.

We invaded, and killed.
You can church it up to sound however you need to,
but facts are facts, whites slaughtered native americans, period.

It certainly is not a bad comparison,
every time a jew gets slandered its all over the news,
but natives can be made a mockery of and its fine.
Its hypocrisy.

Again, if you only know the story that has been written within the last century, then of course you are going to think that. However, that's not the full story. I'm not claiming that the white settlers were 100% innocent, however, the Native-American tribes weren't completely innocent either. The violence went both ways.

And you can't claim that the Native-American violence was ALWAYS justified. Since they had no concept of land ownership, you can't really steal something from someone if they don't actually own it. If I grew up around a tree on an unclaimed plot of land and had lots of fond memories of climbing that tree, do I have the right to be angry and try to kill someone who buys that lot and cuts the tree down? No, because the tree never actually belonged to me.

Now in the instances where we actually drove them off their settlements and destroyed their homes, then I would agree that we were 100% wrong. However, Puritan settlers moving into unclaimed ground in order to flee from religious oppression is not the same thing as armed men on horseback riding through Indian campgrounds and killing everything in sight.

You also have to remember that most Puritans and Quakers were pacifists and would never steal from anyone for fear of incurring GOD's wrath. They made trades or attempted to purchase land from the Indians, but again, land ownership was a foreign concept to Native-Americans. So, unfortunately, because of the cultural divide, the natives saw the "trades" or "payments" as gifts and didn't necessarily understand that the Europeans were purchasing something that they believed belonged to everyone.

My dad's adopted father was an "Indian hunter" in Mexico during the early 20th century and his motto was "The only good Indian is a dead Indian" (a point of view that I most definitely do NOT share). My dad's adopted mother actually fled for her life from Geronimo, while she was a child in Mexico. So my dad's family had experienced the brutality of Native Americans first hand. On the other side of the coin, I'm actually part Cherokee from my mother's side of the family.

So this kind of gives me a different perspective and I can tell you that the version of history that is commonly taught in public schools and glorified in movies is only half the story.

atomdanger
12-22-2009, 03:09 AM
Again, if you only know the story that has been written within the last century, then of course you are going to think that. However, that's not the full story. I'm not claiming that the white settlers were 100% innocent, however, the Native-American tribes weren't completely innocent either. The violence went both ways.

And you can't claim that the Native-American violence was ALWAYS justified. Since they had no concept of land ownership, you can't really steal something from someone if they don't actually own it. If I grew up around a tree on an unclaimed plot of land and had lots of fond memories of climbing that tree, do I have the right to be angry and try to kill someone who buys that lot and cuts the tree down? No, because the tree never actually belonged to me.

Now in the instances where we actually drove them off their settlements and destroyed their homes, then I would agree that we were 100% wrong. However, Puritan settlers moving into unclaimed ground in order to flee from religious oppression is not the same thing as armed men on horseback riding through Indian campgrounds and killing everything in sight.

You also have to remember that most Puritans and Quakers were pacifists and would never steal from anyone for fear of incurring GOD's wrath. They made trades or attempted to purchase land from the Indians, but again, land ownership was a foreign concept to Native-Americans. So, unfortunately, because of the cultural divide, the natives saw the "trades" or "payments" as gifts and didn't necessarily understand that the Europeans were purchasing something that they believed belonged to everyone.

My dad's adopted father was an "Indian hunter" in Mexico during the early 20th century and his motto was "The only good Indian is a dead Indian" (a point of view that I most definitely do NOT share). My dad's adopted mother actually fled for her life from Geronimo, while she was a child in Mexico. So my dad's family had experienced the brutality of Native Americans first hand. On the other side of the coin, I'm actually part Cherokee from my mother's side of the family.

So this kind of gives me a different perspective and I can tell you that the version of history that is commonly taught in public schools and glorified in movies is only half the story.

You're definitely right that we are only taught half the story.
and to be honest I couldn't care less about how our history played out with the native american's, I was just trying to use them for an example.

Crisco
12-22-2009, 02:26 PM
Funny, isnt that exactly the sort of fascism that Hitler used to try and convince Germany.

I dont uphold the wiping out of any culture based purely on because of who they are. What the Spanish did was massicre those Meso-American Cultures, and it was nasty...what the Americans did to the Natives, was...yes a very similar thing, and it was nasty to.

Not at the time ;)

Your countryman sir.

Neezar
12-22-2009, 02:27 PM
Not at the time ;)

Your countryman sir.


Burn! :laugh:

Tyburn
12-22-2009, 04:30 PM
Not at the time ;)

Your countryman sir.

Are you sure you were rounding up a killing the Indian when you were only a few scattered Collonial outposts on the Eastern Seaboard. Are you telling me, the main bulk of this massicre occured before US Independance.

My source assured me you didnt start rounding them up until you started moving and collonizing inland and the Mid West. :unsure-1:

Tyburn
12-22-2009, 04:30 PM
Burn! :laugh:

:angry:

NateR
12-22-2009, 04:33 PM
Are you sure you were rounding up a killing the Indian when you were only a few scattered Collonial outposts on the Eastern Seaboard. Are you telling me, the main bulk of this massicre occured before US Independance.

My source assured me you didnt start rounding them up until you started moving and collonizing inland and the Mid West. :unsure-1:

Yeah, Dave because we all know that you Brits would NEVER in a million years even consider taking someone's land away from them. :Whistle:

Plus, you're completely ignoring the brutality of the Indians themselves. Or did your "source" not assure you of that? :rolleyes:

NateR
12-22-2009, 04:46 PM
Also, Dave, don't YOU remember when YOU did this?
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c201/Barada73/british-atrocities-india.jpg

Tying Indian prisoners of war to cannons and firing them off was an extremely cruel thing for YOU to do, Dave. YOU are just a murderer and a liar like the rest of YOUR countrymen.

Crisco
12-22-2009, 04:58 PM
Are you sure you were rounding up a killing the Indian when you were only a few scattered Collonial outposts on the Eastern Seaboard. Are you telling me, the main bulk of this massicre occured before US Independance.

My source assured me you didnt start rounding them up until you started moving and collonizing inland and the Mid West. :unsure-1:

The main bulk of the western massacre happened during the western push and the main bulk of the eastern occured when we where first settled they had to make room for the colonies sir.

Tyburn
12-22-2009, 06:36 PM
1)Yeah, Dave because we all know that you Brits would NEVER in a million years even consider taking someone's land away from them. :Whistle:

2)Plus, you're completely ignoring the brutality of the Indians themselves. Or did your "source" not assure you of that? :rolleyes:

:laugh: given half a chance we would, but thats not the issue is it :tongue0011:

2) No, they were nasty killers...I watched Deadliest Warrior to, I know the Apache beats the Roman Gladiator :rolleyes::laugh:

Tyburn
12-22-2009, 06:38 PM
The main bulk of the western massacre happened during the western push and the main bulk of the eastern occured when we where first settled they had to make room for the colonies sir.

Oh...well Conquest is one thing. I have no problem with that. Expansion...thats slightly different. :ninja: I didnt know there were many Natives on the Eastern Seaboard...I thought they were all in the States which have the big areas of grassland, or the deserts :unsure-1:

Tyburn
12-22-2009, 06:41 PM
Also, Dave, don't YOU remember when YOU did this?
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c201/Barada73/british-atrocities-india.jpg

Tying Indian prisoners of war to cannons and firing them off was an extremely cruel thing for YOU to do, Dave. YOU are just a murderer and a liar like the rest of YOUR countrymen.

I'm glad you explained that actually...because I was having a jolly hard time remembering that :mellow:

Did we really fire Indians out of Cannons :huh: that is...most disturbing....did they do something to deserve it. :huh: I mean, presumably we didnt march into a camp, round the whole lot up, and fire them out of cannons enmass.

The key phrase you used was "prisoner of war"

Jonlion
12-22-2009, 07:15 PM
Well I doubt that there is many people whose ancestors and nations don't have blood on their hands at some point.

It is something to be acknowledged but We don't have to all apoligise for it.

There are many arguements back and forth regarding native Americans and White settelers. And there is no doubt atrocities were committed by both sides.

However lets be real, in the end we "collectively" duped, fooled, cajoled, bullied, massaccred native Americans principally as we saw the "new world" as God Given annd ours to exploit.

However it has happened, and it is over.

What i object to is the comment that we done the world a favour by obliterating some certain "cultures". Anyway,..............




This Pope should not be rewarded anything near a sainthood and Benedict should move to stop this.


If there is someone that should be regonised, look no further than Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

The guy is awesome, I want to learn more about him

Tyburn
12-22-2009, 07:20 PM
What i object to is the comment that we done the world a favour by obliterating some certain "cultures". Anyway,..............




This Pope should not be rewarded anything near a sainthood and Benedict should move to stop this.



Thats my bone. I dont realy care about Native American Culture, it wasnt substantial enough to really be classed as a Civilization, it was simply a load of warfareing tribes. I dont condone the distruction of them, but I dont mourne their passing.

What pisses me off is that kinda american arrogance which is "well we did everyone a favour by wiping them out" As Maggie would say "No, No, NO" :laugh:

Benedict isnt going to move to stop Pius...He bloody authorised it. Right now just by getting Papal acknowledgement he has become "The Venerable" Pope Pius Twelfth.

Jonlion
12-22-2009, 07:58 PM
Thats my bone. I dont realy care about Native American Culture, it wasnt substantial enough to really be classed as a Civilization, it was simply a load of warfareing tribes. I dont condone the distruction of them, but I dont mourne their passing.

What pisses me off is that kinda american arrogance which is "well we did everyone a favour by wiping them out" As Maggie would say "No, No, NO" :laugh:

Benedict isnt going to move to stop Pius...He bloody authorised it. Right now just by getting Papal acknowledgement he has become "The Venerable" Pope Pius Twelfth.

I mourn there loss. It makes me laugh how we call them savages and truly do not look at our own actions. I don't think there is an American arrogance, and there is remorse over what has happened. In some cases it may of gone to far.

But I thought they were a great peoples, beset with some of the same violent and horrible issues that humanity as a whole struggles with.

A good book to read about there great culture, wisdom and is "Bury my heart at Wounded Knee", by Dee Brown.



But I want to read more about this guy, Bonhoffer
http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_ss_3_5?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=bonhoeffer+cost+of+discipleship&sprefix=bonho

A