 |
| |
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:21
|
|
Pax, I read through that first article and was informed that the Aussie natives "died" out or that their population was reduced. What happened was labelled genocide, but what happened is not discussed in the article, only the results of what happened.
If it was similar to what happened in the US, there is a recurring pattern. The whites buy land from the natives who sell the land for money to buy goods they cannot produce themselves. The natives do not understand that by selling the land, they can no longer go there to hunt and fish. The whites move in and are soon confronted with natives on their land. The whites chase the natives away. Soon, though, the natives need more food because they are starving. They return to the whites land to hunt or fish or simply to steal livestock and crops. Now there is a violent confrontation. The natives lose. They may come back with a war party, and the whites lose -- temporarily. The whites organize an even larger war party or call in the army. The natives are wiped out.
The native survivors move further away from the whites, and further into inhospitiable territory, territory that can no longer support their previoius numbers. Things stabalize for awhile. But white civilization again approaches and the pattern repeats.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pax
|
|
Wow Ned. I never looked at it in such a clean and bloodless manner. Before I comment, I would like to see how you explain away the Opium wars. Please read the other article.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pax
|
|
And while you're explaining. Explain the trail of tears.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:21
|
|
WRT the second article, here is a far more accurate account of what actually occurred, taken from Encarta:
"The breakup of the EEIC monopoly was the immediate cause of the First Opium War, both because it led to a huge increase in opium traffic and because, without the EEIC to serve as a buffer, the British government now found itself obliged to intervene more frequently in China. A vocal part of the English public clamored for greater access to China’s huge market, and Britain often sought these goals through bluster and the threat of force.
China saw the problem differently and moved to stem the trade imbalance and the opium craze that plagued its people. In late 1838 Emperor Qianlong appointed a famed official, Lin Zexu, as imperial commissioner and sent him to Guangzhou to solve the problem. In March 1839 Lin ordered the British merchants to hand over all of their opium stocks within three days and to sign a bond pledging never again to traffic in the drug under penalty of death. When British superintendent of trade Charles Elliot attempted to negotiate, Lin suspended trade and held all foreign merchants hostage. Elliot then ordered the merchants to hand over their opium to him, after which he surrendered it to Lin. Lin washed some 9 million Mexican silver dollars worth of opium into the sea, not realizing that English patriots would view this as destruction of Crown property.
While Lin and the British merchants jousted over the signing of the bonds, officials in England dispatched an armed force to China. The Chinese had prepared for war at Guangzhou, but the British force simply blockaded that city on its way north toward the capital of Beijing, where officials met with the Chinese. The result of subsequent negotiations was the Convention of Quanbi in January 1841, in which the bare minimum of British demands were met. The agreement was subsequently rejected by both sides: The emperor was enraged that his representative had made real concessions, while the British felt that Elliot had failed to press his advantage.
Sir Henry Pottinger replaced Elliot in August 1841 and immediately directed his forces to occupy important cities along the coast, including Ningbo and Tianjin. In the spring of 1842 the English renewed their offensive, triumphing readily over valiant but underarmed Chinese resistance. By late June the British occupied Zhenjiang, an important communication center and entry to the Grand Canal, the artery by which rice from the southern regions reached the northern capital. The Chinese agreed to negotiate, and at gunpoint they signed the Treaty of Nanjing (Nanking) on August 29, 1842. The treaty more than fulfilled England’s original goals: The cohong was abolished, four more Chinese ports were opened to trade (Fuzhou, Ningbo, Shanghai, and Xiamen), and the island of Hong Kong was ceded to the British.
© 1993-2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved."
|
|
| |
|
|
|
johncmcleod
|
 |
Coeur d'Alene, ID, USA
Jan 2002
time: 21:21
|
|
Reading all of this hasn't help.
I see why Bush has been a horrible president for the last 4 years. I just don't see how Kerry will be better for the next four. In rhetoric, Kerry cares about what the rest of the world thinks of him. In reality, just about every president has said that, but they really don't care. He won't handle Iraq and Afghanistan any differently than Bush. And Kerry also wants even more tax cuts, I don't see how that will help the fiscal situation.
OTOH, I don't see why to vote third party. First off, the socialist candidate won't be elected. Second off, the US isn't a good place to start a socialist revolution. America is made wealthy by our corporations stripping the third world of its raw materials and using the 3rd world as a cheap labor source. Socialism would crack down on this and it would greatly improve the lives of those outside of the US in the third world. But Americans wouldn't benefit from such reforms, we wouldn't be as rich if they were carried out. So we'd vote at the socialist and say "Socialism sucks."
Ned, don't even try to justify the genocide of the Native Americans. The whites stole their land and destroyed their way of life. Now what is left is drunkards on reservations.
quote:
I am not going to defend Andrew Jackson, founder of the Democrat party, and establisher of the principle that Democrats are supreme beings that need not follow the law. |
Ned, you worry too much about silly rules and regulations that were controlled by corrupt people. Those laws were 'irrelevant.' Andrew Jackson didn't 'need a stamp of approval to defend our freedom.' He was a strong leader that 'stuck to his guns' and didn't 'worry about what everyone thought of him.' He didn't 'use an opinion poll to run the country.' He ran a 'confrontational, aggressive, and effective War on Terror.' He didn't 'appease the terrorists, he took 'em head on and drew the line.' He was a 'man of action' and a true 'visionary leader' that believed in a 'stronger America.' And thanks to him we're now safe and can enjoy our freedom. 'God bless America.'
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pax
|
|
Ned,
That was a long statement about the Opium Wars. Let me make a shorter. The Chinese had no need of British imports. The only thing the British found that they could sell to the Chinese was Opium. After one of the Emperor's children died of an overdose, the Emperor made it illegal. The Emperor also sent a letter to the British crown informing them of the illegality of Opium in China. The British forced through China's markets open. What they sold to them was Opium. A drug that was deadly. Your encyclopedia also glosses over the cold hard truths. Once again, you are saying that a democratic country does not have to respect another countries sovereignty. Once again showing your true nature.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
johncmcleod
|
|
Coeur d'Alene, ID, USA
Jan 2002
time: 21:21
|
|
quote:
That was one of the funniest things I've read on Apolyton is a while. I congratulate you JohnC! |
Thanks. I liked it too.
quote:
Oh, and JohnC, the story about the way the Indians and Whites collided as cultures is not fiction. This was Alexis DeTocqueville's description of their relationship as he set forth in DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA written in 1830, IIRC. |
First off, 1830 is way before the worst of it happened, and second, that is by a white author in 1830. At this time the natives were considered sub-human by the whites, who wanted to justify their actions. The account is just too subjective.
BTW, when my jazz band was at a festival last year, I was looking at all of the bands at the festival and I noticed that Aptos High School was there.
Last edited by johncmcleod on 23-10-2004 at 11:30
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by johncmcleod
Thanks. I liked it too.
First off, 1830 is way before the worst of it happened, and second, that is by a white author in 1830. At this time the natives were considered sub-human by the whites, who wanted to justify their actions. The account is just too subjective.
BTW, when my jazz band was at a festival last year, I was looking at all of the bands at the festival and I noticed that Aptos High School was there. |
Re: History. I think you are quite wrong about when the "worst" happened. Most of the Indians lived East of the Mississippi when Europeans first arrived. In 1830, there were still Indian wars occurring on the Eastern side of the Mississippi. Abe Lincoln was in one of them.
Regardless, the account was written by a Frenchman who had nothing to defend. Also, the French (as did the Spanish) did not think the Indians as subhuman. They thought of them as people to be converted to Christianity and with whom they could intermarry. So I would suggest to you that the account is unbiased and accurate.
Yeah, Aptos High is an excellent school in music and in football. My daughter was in the band and went on to play the flute in the local orchestra and in the Carleton College orchestra as well.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
23-10-2004 04:14
. IIRC, France abolished slavery before 1830 and liberal Frenchmen were more tolerant of blacks.
which was also part of their agenda for power 
.
|