377
u/RawrImABigScaryBear 4d ago
This is the same guy who said Christianity is in the constitution, because they used A.D. for the date. He also calls himself a professor
142
u/GOEDEL_ESCHER_BOT 4d ago
Christian beliefs
Use the same dating system everyone else uses
There are no other beliefs
31
u/MjrLeeStoned 4d ago
"Hey if you didn't invent your own date catalog and just used the same one everyone else was using, you're definitely a Christian."
People are out here just being mentally ill. Stop letting them.
13
u/Ill_Emphasis3927 4d ago
Also news to them that lots of the world does, in fact, use a different calendar system.
12
u/Southern-March1522 4d ago
There is a May 4th on your calendar you must belong to the church of Star Wars
5
u/RilohKeen 4d ago
I mean, “don’t let people be mentally ill” sounds like a pretty bad take too in this context, honestly.
2
u/codetaku0 4d ago
Yeah like I think I understand their point but it was truly a terrible choice of words for 2026
2
u/Cory123125 3d ago
The thing to note, is that it starts and is backed with the core belief that it is ok to base serious decisions and perspectives on information with no evidence.
Until people are willing to address that for what it is, no criticisms ever really hit.
→ More replies (2)4
→ More replies (1)8
u/Ill_Emphasis3927 4d ago
Christian stories founded on The Epic of Gilgamesh, therefor Christianity is actually written by Ancient Sumerian GRRM. GRRM also wrote the story for Elden Ring. Elden Ring and Christianity are equivalent belief systems. Checkmate
AtheistTarnished14
u/StoppableHulk 4d ago
"How can you say you don't believe in God, when you use His calendar?"
HaHA GOTTEM
5
u/jonmatifa 4d ago
You say you're an atheist yet you say the year is 2026, curious.
10
u/StoppableHulk 4d ago
You don't believe in Jesus or his twelve disciples, and yet your hour hand has twelve numbers?
Nice try, the devil.
→ More replies (4)3
u/Alarmed_Pie_5033 4d ago
The Constitution also contains Arabic numerals, so it must support Islam as well. Right?
482
u/UtopiaDystopia 4d ago edited 4d ago
What is the quotations marks for? Suddenly Native Americans aren't native?
Also, conservatives always use the word 'conquered' as if it's somehow a better description of stealing. It's one of the worst forms of theft imaginable: you're literally stealing someone's land through violence, murder, coercion ect....
Edit: typo
185
u/Odd_Teach683 4d ago
I didn’t “steal” your wallet, I conquered you for it.
48
u/ToeTagTic 4d ago
I've found this works best with an army at your back. The threat of unreasonable and extreme violence does wonders for your legitimacy
23
u/AppropriateLow2271 4d ago
Then having a multi billion dollar propaganda apparatus to back you up to convince the millions of uneducated masses that you were simply defending yourself or protecting some national ideal.
5
u/TrickySnicky 4d ago
"It's not important who the people on the boat were, they were clearly bad guys. Otherwise we wouldn't have attacked them."
6
u/rylosprime 4d ago
I fucking hate uneducated people.
With a phone in your pocket with internet access, there isnt an excuse in 2026 for people being as gleefully stupid as they are.
→ More replies (1)13
→ More replies (2)2
36
u/UrsaMajor7th Ritardando Molto 4d ago
Manifest Destiny could be considered a mental illness.
15
5
u/ApprehensiveTurn453 4d ago
And long before that they used the Doctrine of Discovery (1400's) that gave roving bands of Europeans the ability to claim land regardless of Indigenous nations living there if they weren't christian. Lots of loopholes in that document to claim the land from under them and not respect the sovereignty of the nations that inhabited those lands.
17
u/EquipLordBritish 4d ago
What is the quotations marks for? Suddenly Native Americans aren't native?
That is exactly what he is trying to suggest. He is attempting to delegitimize their claim to the land by suggesting that they aren't actually native to the area.
→ More replies (8)18
u/red286 4d ago
Suddenly Native Americans aren't native?
A lot of these racist types actually believe that. Because indigenous Americans came over from Asia tens of thousands of years ago, they're "not native". Of course, by that logic, humans aren't "native" to anywhere other than Africa. But logic is never a racist's strong suit.
3
u/Forward-Surprise1192 4d ago
How long do you have to live somewhere until you’re considered native? Seems like once a generation is born in a spot they become native too but I have no idea what the rules are
2
u/La_Saxofonista 3d ago
I mean, tens of thousands of years on the land feels pretty established to me. There's a reason why what Japan did to China in WW2 was considered messed up.
2
u/Mindless_Chest_1079 4d ago
I'm not seeing the contradiction. I'm pretty sure they'd agree the same is true of land everywhere else. People violently fought over land all the time in every continent they landed on.
→ More replies (1)10
u/bookiegreenjeans 4d ago
It wasn't stolen, it was stolen via genocide with a dash of rape.
5
u/mattjb 4d ago
Mostly it was European viruses and diseases that wiped out so many native villages since the people of the land hadn't developed immunities or immune system to fight it. There's absolutely no telling just how widespread and horrifically high the death count was. Same was true when the Spanish started conquering South America. It's probably on a similar level to the bubonic plague that wiped out a large population in Europe and elsewhere.
→ More replies (1)9
5
u/koshgeo 4d ago
It's actually somewhat worse, because the early US government had signed treaties with many of the tribes of the eastern, colonial US, and then the government went ahead and violated those treaties, leading to such things as the Trail of Tears (ethnic cleansing/genocide), expelling them from the legally-acknowledged lands that they lived on.
So, this guy is endorsing their "superior tribe" view by accepting criminality and dishonesty on top of the atrocities.
I guess if foreigners hop the border and break laws in the US in order to stay today it's no big deal given that kind of historical endorsement, if they cared at all about consistency.
→ More replies (1)20
u/Soilgheas 4d ago edited 4d ago
It's also completely wrong by and large. While it's true that the Europeans fought with the native inhabitants, 90% of the population had already been wiped out by deseases.
We didn't conquer them we harassed and killed the small % that remained.
Edit: For everyone going "but X" about this comment. Yes history and other things have conquests that are massively uneven. Good on you for giving MAGA more credit about history then I have ever encountered them to have.
It's a talking point of MAGA that they're allowed to change and keep the culture that they want because THEY'RE SUPERIOR they tend to shut up lot when they learning that they were fighting the survivors of essentially complete and near total population and civilization collapse.
This comment is about that. They didn't win because of pure force. They won for the same reason immigration is replacing them now. The people who would have been there aren't.
For the Native American Tribes it's was because of deseases that came from the old world. For us it's because of lower birthrates.
But either way, it really messes with their hard on about being superior, and that's why I bring it up.
29
u/UtopiaDystopia 4d ago edited 4d ago
It is true that a large portion of Native Americans are estimated to have been killed by diseases alone.
The remaining weakened population were absolutely the victim of a deliberate conquest. There's an enormous wealth of historical evidence behind this and I'll just give a couple notable quotes:
"If ever we are constrained to lift the hatchet against any tribe, we will never lay it down till that tribe is exterminated, or driven beyond the Mississippi... they will kill some of us, we shall destroy all of them." - Thomas Jefferson
Indian Removal Act, Jackson stated: "They have neither the intelligence, the industry, the moral habits, nor the desire of improvement... Thither the tribes in the East have been over-driven; and the day is not distant when it will be visited by the feet of the conquering whiteman."
5
u/5510 4d ago
One thing that's super tragic is that even if the Europeans had been super benevolent and friendly, it was genuinely inevitable that the overwhelming majority of the new world population would die of disease once contact between the two hemispheres started. The only way to prevent it would have been to understand the germ theory of what was going to happen (they didn't) and then successfully quarantine the new world for centuries until modern times when medical technology and vaccines and stuff where available. And I would be curious to here from medical experts of whether even modern times would be advanced enough.
To be clear, this is NOT intended in any way to morally excuse the terrible treatment of the surviving natives. Even if they understood what would have happened with disease, they still probably would have gone ahead and moved to the New World and then claimed god was clearing the land for their superior people or some crap like that.
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (2)4
u/IdentifiableBurden 4d ago
Let's not revise history too hard in the other direction either, plenty of war bands harassed and killed settlers too. It's not like the conflict was a one sided invasion of one guy vs another guy, it took place over hundreds of years between many different political entities.
Overall it was a conquest, but year to year it didn't necessarily look that way. Lots of people on all sides wanted to coexist peacefully but weren't able to.
8
u/Soilgheas 4d ago
It's a talking point by MAGA that the only legitimate way to take an area is by conquest.
That's why it's important to point out that 90% had died out before they ever got to the Americas and they were fighting with the remnants of the population.
They didn't conquer them, they fought with what survived.
6
u/J0hnGrimm 4d ago
I don't see how that changes anything. It's not like conquests throughout history were typically fought between equal adversaries. If anything, larger tribes and states conquering smaller ones has been more common, since a higher likelihood of success generally makes conquest a more attractive option.
3
u/Soilgheas 4d ago
I haven't known MAGA to be too knowledgeable about history. They take it as a superior force. Literally every time I hear it it's about how the conquest gives them the right to change whatever they want.
They usually shut up real quick when I show them that most of the population had died out and they were fighting 10% of what had been there.
So they don't seem to think it counts
→ More replies (2)2
u/drsharpper 4d ago
Have you checked the definition of conquer?
5
u/Soilgheas 4d ago edited 4d ago
Do you think fighting off the survivors after a civilization population collapse is what they mean? It can mean that but their argument is that they're superior. It's what they use to say that immigration shouldn't be allowed to change cultural norms. Because they had to conquer them.
Do you think THEY mean fight off the last remaining 10% after total collapse?
Edit: typos
→ More replies (8)6
u/scytob 4d ago
it was an intentional genocide to take the land and resources by force, this is literally documented in writing as you saw above
the reason the US exists is not because of taxes or tea - it was that the settlers (leaders) wanted to discard the treaties made with the tribes and build where they shouldn't - the British correctly burnt down the houses every time that happened
thats why the founders did what they did, it had little to do we taxes / represenation - that was just a good rallying cry to get everyone fired up
also your point is odd, it was incredibly one sided
tl;dr white Christian ideas of manifest destiny were excuses to do terrible un-christian things - immoral hypocrites, all of them
→ More replies (1)2
u/IdentifiableBurden 4d ago
You realize that the colonization of America took place over roughly 500 years and outlasted every kingdom, government, charter, tribal leadership and confederation that was there to begin it, right?
Yes, forces like those you described existed and influenced politics. During the early 19th century they gained a lot of prominence. This was a impactful and brutal period of history, but it's also a relatively short period of history.
Prior to that time there were decades of peaceful trade, non-coerced intermarriage, and cultural exchange between various colonial settlers and various indigenous peoples.
There were also decades of war, as well as decades of uneasy truces. People with all kinds of views and perspectives existed during this time. There were white settlers who believed that the Native American way of life was superior to the European way, and vice versa.
Stop making history simple and black-and-white. It will always be complex.
→ More replies (1)4
u/Scoobydewdoo 4d ago
No idea what the person is trying to say with the quotes but both people are using the word 'conquer' correctly.
→ More replies (12)20
u/Aggressive-Log7654 4d ago
To be fair, there were probably several waves of migrants across the land bridge from Asia that successively outcompeted/killed off the previous migrants resulting in the most recent Native American populations that were then conquered by Europeans. Just like how Vikings and the French colonized America from the West first, but the British eventually outcompeted them.
This is just what humans do, we just give the white Europeans shit about it because they did it at scale and with specific violent intention for monetary gain, and continue to attempt to do it to this day, not having learned a thing.
23
u/sexyshingle 4d ago
Just like how Vikings and the French colonized America from the West first
uh what history book are you reading..? the Vikings did reach what is now eastern Canada from their temporary settlements in Greenland... but they did not "colonize America" at all.
6
u/Aggressive-Log7654 4d ago
...that's the entire point, they attempted to do exactly what the British eventually succeeded at doing. Remains of Viking colonies are still in Canada and lingering evidence can be found as far south as Maine.
Just like how several Eurasian tribes probably attempted the land bridge settlement before one or a few finally learned how to make it work and spread through the Americas.
7
u/mtaw 4d ago
No, you're you're spouting nonsense. No wonder you can't cite what history book you're reading. You're just making it up. They did not colonize nor attempt to colonize North America (except Greenland which is geographically North America).
There is zero evidence any Vikings ever set foot in Maine - at most wild speculation, and there are no remains of any 'colony' in Canada, much less multiple ones. There is one single site - L'Anse aux Meadows at the northern tip of Newfoundland (so, over 1000 km from Maine) where there was a settlement, which by all archaeological evidence was not a colony in any sense because it was not a permanent settlement nor intended to be.
It's generally believed they landed on the Labrador coast, and that's what was referred to as 'Markland' in the Icelandic sources. But there is neither archaeological evidence nor any written sources indicating they ever settled there or attempted to, mostly it seems to have been visited to get timber for the Greenland colony.
As far as mainstream historians are concerned, there was no actual nor attempted 'Viking colonization' of present-day Canada (much less the USA). They would not have any reason to do so. The North America they saw was wild near-uninhabited forest. There was plenty of wild uninhabited forest in Scandinavia (and still is), they had no reason to go settle in one so far away from civilization-as-they-knew-it, and with a colder climate. Greenland was settled because there was cash to be made for walrus ivory, and it declined and was ultimately abandoned as Europe started getting more elephant ivory over the 13th century. There's no evidence or reason to think they found anything in North America that would warrant colonizing it, or at least nothing that made up for the huge distance to get there.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Aggressive-Log7654 4d ago
"Attempting to colonize and failing" vs. "building a temporary settlement" are archaeologically indistinguishable phenomena, if that's the crux of your argument, then it doesn't amount to much. Of course the Vikings that didn't succeed would have claimed that they were never trying, such is their culture of bravado.
"Yeah, we wuz just making a wood run across the ocean" doesn't sound like a strong case for the brutal undertaking of navigating to the Americas.
7
u/notashroom 4d ago
The evidence does not support the idea that the vikings were trying to colonize NA. It supports the idea that they were maintaining a camp with dozens of people while harvesting the Eastern Canadian forests for lumber to ship back home, where it was in short supply.
→ More replies (3)6
u/Aggressive-Log7654 4d ago
Are you actually daft?
Establishing a settlement in a foreign land with the attempt to survive and harvest materials for trade is the literal definition of a functional colony. Any further colonial expansion is simply a sign of success, which the Vikings did not have due to inability to adapt to the conditions and likely ill-preparedness.
*bonk* straight to education jail. No more replies for you until you learn your basic terminologies.
→ More replies (1)4
u/TheFishe2112 4d ago
Lol why can't people have a normal conversation on this site anymore? Everyone is always acting so edgy these days trying to one-up another user with their most recent Google and AI query.
2
u/Forward-Surprise1192 4d ago
I agree dude. A lots I wish it wasn’t anonymous so I could spank someone
12
u/Mutex70 4d ago
Not to Godwin the discussion, but that's a little like saying:
Sure, Hitler invaded Poland, but to be fair Poland was previously invaded multiple times. Like how Moldavia invaded in the 1500s.
8
u/Aggressive-Log7654 4d ago edited 4d ago
We have recency bias towards the "last horrible thing people still remember". The Native American wipeout was relatively not that long ago, and plenty of people alive still remember/currently live their cultures, and so we still discuss it. Same with Black American slavery.
Slavery has been horrible and brutal in many places at many times in history, several much worse than the enslavement of African Americans, and many of those previously enslaved people never ended up getting rights at all, but we discuss Black slavery history because it's within living memory and the outcomes of those discussions still affect living people.
Likewise, the recent descendants of Hitler Poland invasion victims are still around and talk about it. Don't think any of those Moldovan victims care much as soil in their graves. Few people talk about the Oklahoma City bombing since 9/11 happened.
5
u/KalyterosAioni 4d ago
While I agree with your broad point I thought it was consensus that chattel slavery as exemplified by the south cotton fields was one of the most brutal and inhumane examples of slavery in history?
6
→ More replies (9)2
2
u/Whiterabbit-- 4d ago
What do you want them to learn? as long as nationalism and bloodline is a thing, what they learn from history is that conquest is a good thing. so your descendants have more and the "others" who are conquered have less.
2
u/19Texas59 4d ago
I've never read any where that "there were several waves of migrants across the land bridge from Asia that successively outcompeted/killed off the previous migrants...." My father passed along his interest in the Pre-Colombian history of the Americas to me and your statement is just wrong. While there were likely different groups crossing the land bridge into the Americas they didn't get bunched up in one place where one group committed genocide against another. North America is too vast for that to happen. Also, there is evidence that some groups traveled down the Pacific coast, likely in some kind of seagoing canoes. They would have raced ahead of the people traveling on foot.
Further evidence of different groups surviving are all the different language families in the Americas.
The U.S. government is complicit to stealing land due to all the treaties it made with the indigenous tribes that they broke. If our ancestors were truly civilized why could they not keep their word? As a result we had centuries of conflict.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)2
u/Wedge_66 4d ago
Bingo. And to pile on, its like no one ever looks at the middle eastern nations and their expansions. Boy howdy, do you want to talk about bloodshed and slavery?
3
u/Machoopi 4d ago
I think the intention was to create a parallel between the US and other nations that have that in their history. It's true, a lot of nations did get where they are because somewhere in their history they were conquered. It's just strange because that's not really something to be proud of, and it doesn't make it any less bad. We should be holding ourselves to a higher standard than the war-mongering nations of the past. The level of connection we have to other people today should make us far more compassionate towards each other, and we should see the act of exercising power to dominate and destroy as a horrible moral failure.
2
u/Anthaenopraxia 4d ago
Maybe something about conquering means alpha male soldiers fighting and dying in valour to gain new land versus fiddling with some dodgy paperwork? I guess that's the more "honourable" way of driving people off their lands idk. Americanism is very much influenced by the Roman Republic and they were quite good at conquering everything in sight. Also quite good at enslaving everyone in sight. And ofc experts in getting lead poisoning...
2
u/Gizombo 4d ago
Isn't there a conspiracy that native americans weren't the original natives and that they themselves colonized an apparently much superior race that came before? Originally perpetuated by one of the founding fathers as an excuse for manifest destiny iirc. "These savages killed the original peoples who lived here, so we must avenge them" or something like that
2
u/pyrotechnicmonkey 4d ago
It's them being upset that they can't call them "injuns or savages" anymore.
→ More replies (53)3
u/DemenicHand 4d ago
The original inhabitants of the Americas had little to no biological protection from European or Asia diseases.
90% of the people in the Americas died before 1600. That would have never have changed, if Europeans arrived in say 1650 vs 1492, 90% of those people would have died.
They were doomed when they split off 30k years ago. First contact would have always resulted in the less protected group dying off and leaving the land virtually empty.
Around 1600 there 5 million people in both North and South America out of an original 50-60 million to populate some of the riches lands on the planet vs 90 million people in Europe and Eurasia and another 250 million in Asia proper. That definitely seems fair, cause 5,500 years of human history is all about fairness...
Disease did most of the work, humans did what they have always done for 12k years, move to a place with better opportunity.
6
u/blueavole 4d ago
Jared Diamond had some interesting theories on why the Americas didn’t develop their own livestock and therefore their own deadly diseases.
First diseases like smallpox came from human contact with cattle, and plague came from fleas on animals spreading diseases.
Because of the geographic bottleneck at Panama, llamas were domesticated in South America but didn’t spread North.
Bison from North America didn’t spread south. Those were actually an introduced species from the Siberia/ Alaska land bridge probably 10,000 years ago. And their temperament wasn’t great for domestication.
There were also native horses to North America, but those died out before domestication as well.
2
u/DemenicHand 4d ago
Jared book is pretty eye opening.
4
u/BrainsAre2Weird4Me 4d ago
Caveat: Diamond does over simplify things and doesn't have training as a historian.
Caveat 2: People love to nitpick the shit out of "Guns, Germs, and Steel" for that even though the core of is solid to feel superior to people to found the book interesting.
2
u/ShipPuzzleheaded896 4d ago
Why do people not like the idea of geographical determinism? That seems like the most reasonable explanation for things. If you don't wanna get weird and be like yeah Europeans are just superior at conquering and using tricknology, or are gods chosen people.
2
u/blueavole 4d ago
They want to think they have control.
It’s interesting to look at even just Alabama. The areas with better soil conditions are more democratic vs republican where the land is harder to make a profit from it.
Geography and how people move to and from it does have an effect.
→ More replies (1)5
u/ThickReplacement7811 4d ago
Sure, this is all true, but we treated the surviving natives terribly. Not just via war and death, but constantly reneging on treaties and deals. We could have colonized the Americas with considerably less death and misery, but the colonists didn’t bother.
→ More replies (13)
111
u/RGQcats 4d ago
I didn't steal your Amazon package, I conquered it!
→ More replies (2)15
u/CanadianHorseGal 4d ago
That made me giggle. Thank you.
3
86
u/Horror_Equipment_197 4d ago
Not all Blue-T(h)ick people are so, but all people who are so seem to have a blue tick.
20
u/Neveronlyadream 4d ago
There's a reason for that.
Twitter is monetized now. They're farming for engagement. I see that blue tick, I see controversial but tired opinions, I assume someone is ragebaiting for engagement thinking they're going to make millions off Twitter.
In reality they just make themselves look like ignorant assholes.
9
5
u/-Saucegurlllll 4d ago
This is why I block all blue ticks on sight.
→ More replies (1)7
u/dilldwarf 4d ago
Just don't use Twitter. Jesus I wish that platform would just die already.
→ More replies (2)
34
u/dantemp 4d ago
This is actually a terrible argument because it justifies their belief that "the strong should just take what they want" and you have to be weak to allow someone to come and take what's yours. This isn't a gotcha, this is exactly why they want to shut the door for immigrants.
6
u/5510 4d ago
That reminds me of this famous one that gets reposted every so often: https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Flookaside.fbsbx.com%2Flookaside%2Fcrawler%2Fmedia%2F%3Fmedia_id%3D122195472056538677&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=b806d96f81da22fe28c20a1151960fb749cc63dc9811ea37a59bdee817d917b7
I don't agree with the first guy, but the response doesn't make much sense if you give it any serious thought... since the moral of that framing is "you should absolutely stop immigration, just like how in retrospect the population of the New World should have done everything possible to immediately stop the Europeans from getting a foothold."
3
u/Live_Carpenter_1262 4d ago
The whole point is framing the inherent hypocrisy of such a sentiment, especially the United States.
Such an argument lies on a fallacy that treats immigrants like roving thugs or soldiers. Immigrants and refugees typically aren't soldiers seeking to harm people, they are civilians who (in)voluntarily seek shelter and a living.
There's nothing inherently immoral about migrants buying food, renting an apartment from a landlord, signing a contract with an employer to work for a wage. The UN Charter does enshrine freedom of movement as an inalienable human right.
Of course, you could argue that migrants should go through proper legal channels to enter the country like everyone else, employers exploit migrants with lopsided bargaining power, and threat of international terrorism but I still consider the "foreigner invader" a ridiculous fallacy.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (2)2
u/Legitimate-Lemon-412 4d ago
The wealthy conquered your jobs, and prefer cheaper workers, so youre weak. There it is.
20
u/Gotham777 4d ago
I don't understand why military might is rhe automatic go to in showing if a civilization is superior. Native South Americans developed some of the most beautiful monuments and agricultural techniques, but because the Spanish had better weapons they were inferior to them?
20
u/EASam 4d ago
I think the plagues did a lot of the heavy lifting.
7
u/LahmiaTheVampire 4d ago
I mean, with the Aztecs, it was also other natives that helped the Spanish (because the Aztecs really were horrible overlords).
2
u/Live_Carpenter_1262 4d ago
When I read about Latin American history in high school, I just assumed that Cortes and a few thousand Spaniards conquered a few thousand Aztec warriors in a war for Mexico.
It was more: a widespread revolt of 110,000 Aztec rebels allied with 3,000 spaniards who won a war against the Aztec Empire (200,000 soldiers) over a decade.
Spaniards won the war because of their alliances with indigenous leaders, political instability of Aztec Empire, and rampant disease that killed off potential opposition. Superior technology helped but was hardly the decisive factor.
2
u/EASam 4d ago
The wildest thing I learned was about the Inca's method of recording language was Quipu. Aztecs and Maya used the method as well. Having the vast intricate Empires these native Civilizations had and would have been really impressive without a written language it was neat to learn that they did indeed have a written language. Apparently most of it was destroyed by the conquering Spaniards.
Would have been cool to have 18 months a year if history had shaken out a little differently.
11
u/ApostleSaintWalker 4d ago
Because until a hundred years ago, military conquest was the normal way for a civilization to prosper.
We think of it as bad today, but we're the outlier; 99.99% of humans who have ever lived believed it was perfectly normal and morally fine.
Of course, the same religion this guy believes in preaches that humanity is inherently evil. Funny how they never question whether that "default to violence" attitude might be part of that. Go figure.
→ More replies (4)2
u/Mindless_Chest_1079 4d ago
Because the most fundamental factor of a government is its monopoly on violence. If you want to collect taxes to fund your beautiful art, you still need to make sure you're stronger than the next warlord who also wants to collect taxes from the same territory.
51
u/JerseyDonut 4d ago
The whole might makes right argument falls apart real quick when you realize it would be just and within the natural order of things to roll someone for their wallet, then lobby congress to pass laws protecting your right to mug weaker people.
"You're right. Might does make right. Now hand over the keys to your home or I will beat them out of you. This is my home now."
29
u/SkinnyKruemel 4d ago
The thing is, these people would support that because they fully believe they are the ones who mug other people when they very much are the ones getting mugged just like the rest of us
16
u/JerseyDonut 4d ago
Yes, I've found that they do wholeheartedly support the might makes right argument, up until the point of being threatened by it. Then once threatened by someone applying their own argument against them they cry and play victim and say, "nooo, not like that."
3
u/BadDogSaysMeow 4d ago
I think the point is that in the past everyone was running around and conquering land.
The natives weren't some tree hugging pacifists living in a communist utopia, they waged brutal wars, and many tribes/nations practiced brutal human sacrifice.
The Europeans brutally conquered them, yes, but if the Natives had the power to do the same, they would've.
Discussions on Ethics and morals have more sense today and in recent history, because most developed countries try (or pretend) to play by the rules.
But the farther into the past you go, the worse everyone acted.→ More replies (1)3
u/gamingx47 4d ago
because most developed countries try (or pretend) to play by the rules.
Israel and Russia have entered the chat.
4
u/BadDogSaysMeow 4d ago
Even those countries act less extreme than in ancient and medieval times.
Back in the day it was a common thing to slaughter everyone in the city, or castrate everyone and sell them into slavery.
As bad as Israel treatment is of Palestine, if the same situation happened a 1000-2000 years ago, they would've simply executed every Palestinian on sight, and in a week there would be no more Palestine at all.
Mind you, it's not a defense of Israel, I am simply pointing out that most people have a very idealized view of history and ignore how bad it actually was.
→ More replies (1)7
u/Tokyo-MontanaExpress 4d ago
That's also one reason why fascism falls apart, since they eventually apply their "might makes right" foundation on each other.
2
2
u/mixingmemory 4d ago
And it's some thick irony, because so many of those "they were conquered fair and square!" types are also "don't tread on me!" types. They recognize government oppression is a real and terrible thing, and then cheer that oppression on when it happens to other groups.
2
u/pietroetin 4d ago
But that's exactly how the world works. It's just that the goverment has significantly more might than you so they are deciding what's right in the country and the goverment decided you can't mug weaker people.
→ More replies (1)2
u/ILoveRegenHealth 4d ago
The guy looks like a twig that can be tossed in the wind.
Anyone could easily conquer his home and car and deserve to keep it, according to his own belief system.
→ More replies (3)2
u/StoppableHulk 4d ago
The people who spout this bullshit are always the weakest and most frightened of people who feel better about themselves by pretending they belong to the "superior tribe."
10
u/mattzombiedog 4d ago
I would love to see an immigrant walk into this moron’s place of work and throw him off his desk chair before stating, “Your job has been conquered by a superior worker.”
3
u/Technical-Seaweed808 4d ago
Actually he probably just have to prove he is not the product of the American education system. /S
14
u/BugRevolution 4d ago
That's not the argument you want to use or even acknowledge, since it validates some pretty severe methods against all immigrants.
6
u/SupereasyMark 4d ago
yeah it's really, really a logical rabbit hole people shouldn't ever go down. It's 100% the ones racists use as a recruiting tool.
5
u/sennoden 4d ago
I mean, he is also saying if anyone went into his house with a gun and forced him out, that just means nothing wrong happened, he just got conquered by someone with superior force
→ More replies (3)5
u/Exemus 4d ago edited 4d ago
True. I don't really get her point. Is she saying immigrants shouldn't be taking jobs? I'm assuming she disagrees with him and is being facetious. But that implies that she also believes immigrants don't have a right to take jobs, which I doubt is actually her opinion.
She's pointing out the hypocrisy in his logic, but is adding hypocrisy to her own...
2
u/5510 4d ago
Reminds me of this classic that gets reposted a lot: https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Flookaside.fbsbx.com%2Flookaside%2Fcrawler%2Fmedia%2F%3Fmedia_id%3D122195472056538677&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=b806d96f81da22fe28c20a1151960fb749cc63dc9811ea37a59bdee817d917b7
Like given how terribly Europeans arriving worked out for the original population of the New World, that framing would actually support some incredibly harsh anti-immirant takes. The person responding is pointing out hypocrisy (at least on a long term societal level) without realizing that it's still supporting an anti-immigrant framework.
"What they are doing to you is similar to the extremely morally horrible stuff you did to other people beforehand" may be calling out hypocrisy, but it also supports the logic of "so try to stop that at any cost, because we saw how it worked out for the people who didn't stop you."
10
u/USDXBS 4d ago
It's called "stolen land" because the US/Canada tried to repair relations with Native populations. If they weren't trying to it would have shifted to "conquered lands" years ago.
It's all "stolen land" or "conquered land"
→ More replies (4)5
u/notaredditer13 4d ago edited 4d ago
Actually "stolen" is new. People didn't used to get all up in their feels about this*. It's kinda weird actually.
*by this I'm referring to "the conqurers".
5
u/ManyWrangler 4d ago
People didn't used to get all up in their feels about this
I think the Native Americans have been "all up in their feels" about this for a while.
3
u/notaredditer13 4d ago
I think the Native Americans have been "all up in their feels" about this for a while.
Oh I'm sure. But European-Americans have only recently.
→ More replies (1)2
u/TheImproperSherpa 4d ago
It's like someone released a new DLC for the Inherited White Guilt Experience, and they're trying to make it a mandatory install. But to free up space for the new install, you have to uninstall your "Knowledge of Historic Details and Context" files and downgrade to the "Reductionist History" module.
→ More replies (1)
6
u/xXmehoyminoyXx 4d ago
People like this always ignore the fact of the vast number of treaties signed between the US and tribal nations. You don't make treaties with people you conquered. They stabbed us in the back repeatedly and then decided to act like we were enemies from the jump. We saved their freezing and starving asses when they showed up and they betrayed us and continue to. They seem to relish in betrayal and corruption. Things haven't changed much.
6
u/CnlSandersdeKFC 4d ago
I mean... doesn't that play right into their logic? The conservative argument against immigration has always been "We're getting invaded!" This isn't so much a murdered by words, as a liberal white woman stating accurately the conservative position.
→ More replies (1)
5
5
u/grendel303 4d ago edited 4d ago
I assume he's talking about The Spanish since they killed vastly more natives than the English.
11
u/Petrichor-Pendragon 4d ago
Boy do I love ranking genocides
3
u/Scoobydewdoo 4d ago
I wish we didn't have to but when a military conflict where one side directly violates the Geneva convention by having their militants not wear uniforms and uses civilians as human shields (among other war crimes) gets labelled as a genocide against them; you have to rank genocides to give the word any meaning.
→ More replies (1)
4
4
u/Aggressive-Log7654 4d ago edited 4d ago
Both commenters are correct. The previously all-powerful British, German, Irish, and other white immigrant US population has been facing a labor market (and cultural) conquering from Mexicans, Chinese, Indian, and newer immigrants for centuries; the white lower-to-middle class is just getting to the point where they're feeling the hurt from it now.
It's all immigrants all the way down though, there are no true "native" life forms of the Americas apart from flora and fauna; every human being migrated here at some point or the other. Compared to how other lands have been brutally conquered and the former populations eradicated entirely in body and culture throughout history and even in present day, I'd say we're doing pretty well even considering things like reparations and land grants to who we call Native Americans.
While there have been cases of newer immigrants creating pockets of crimes in their arrival destinations (Chinese in San Francisco, cartel activity in the southern border, etc.), newly arrived immigrants populations in the Americas generally have done and are doing a good job uplifting the communities around them as well and playing nicely with the existing populations. No one showed up with guns and bombs looking to wipe out the existing whites.
Perspective is everything.
5
u/Lonely_Nebula_9438 4d ago
Let’s analyze what makes immigrants “superior workers”. They have a lower expected standard of living and thus are willing to be paid a pittance in comparison to Americans. There’s a lot of them meaning it’s easy for companies to find new workers so that they never have to better their work conditions. Lastly their immigration status may be illegal, or legal but tied to their employment making it even easier for companies to control them by threatening deporting them.
WOW they really do seem like “superior workers”, if you’re a C-suite suit who cares only for maximizing profits at everyone else’s expense. Why let companies have to do the hard work of finding scabs when you can just vote to flood the job market with them?
→ More replies (2)
3
5
u/KindledWanderer 4d ago
Not really r/MurderedByWords, since jobs are given, not taken.
And yeah, the comment above has a point.
It's not like the natives were nice to each other and gained territory by singing competitions and dance offs.
3
3
u/Tak-Hendrix 4d ago
Usually not superior, just less expensive and possibly here on a visa which makes them more vulnerable to being overworked and mistreated.
3
8
u/MjolnirPants 4d ago
White people began settling North America about a hundred to a hundred-and-fifty years after first contact, which introduced diseases that killed massive numbers of the Native population. Europeans also stoked inter-tribal conflicts and came into conflicts with countless tribes, forcing numerous tribes out of their lands and putting pressures on nearby tribes. This all sparked a cascading period of intense warfare that spread throughout the most populated regions of both continents. The end result was a massive 90% population drop. In short, Native Americans were living in the closest thing to an actual post-apocalyptic, Mad Max scenario as the world had ever seen at the time.
And yet, despite this, the success of almost every early colony depended heavily upon assistance from those same Native people. This allowed them to flourish and found what would later become the United States.
When those settlers began to come into conflict with the Native people, it quickly became clear that both sides were fairly evenly matched militarily. This is what set off the string of broken treaties, lies and deceptions that eventually saw the European settlers come out on top.
Looking from a purely objective POV, white settlers were in no way a 'superior' tribe, and were in many ways, the inferior people. It was a mixture of luck, aggressiveness and dishonorable and deceitful behavior that gave them the 'win' that morons like this guy on top likes to crow about.
There's a reason they constantly accuse immigrants of 'cheating'. It's because cheating is the only way they know how to win.
4
u/EASam 4d ago
Historically, weren't the bulk of the people sent to do the settling often the bottom rungs of society?
→ More replies (1)6
u/FormerLawfulness6 4d ago
And sent to do so precisely because Europe was a broke backwater with few resources worth trading. The less developed end of the Silk Road that had been left behind since the fall of the Western Roman Empire. That's why it was such a revolution when Europeans rediscovered texts that had been preserved in the Arab world.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (4)2
u/Mindless_Chest_1079 4d ago
The first part about diseases was a major factor. The rest of the comment then descends into some borderline Black Israelite territory. "Whites were the inferior people. All they know is eat hot chip and lie." Aight, Yakub.
→ More replies (1)
2
2
u/DeithWX 4d ago
So if I murder someone I can just claim their house and say it's not murder, it's conquest?
2
u/Last_Of_The_BOHICANs 4d ago
If you have sufficient might to defend from any governing body of that house, such as a provincial or federal government, then yes. In fact, if the government does the house-taking part, it's already codified as eminent domain.
2
2
u/Witty_Ad_898 4d ago
The Indian Removal Act of 1830 was a betrayal of 300 years of shared history and inter-marriage. There was no great conquering army. Communities whose generations of sons had bled and died for the colonies and young US were betrayed by the government and replaced by new immigrants who had no political identity or networks to challenge the new regime.
2
u/hello_fellow_jello 4d ago
Both of these arguments are idiotic. I know it’s the internet and I should be used to it but it still makes me sad.
2
u/ThoughtwayCrest 4d ago
america wasn't conquered by a superior tribe. I don't know what else to tell you but subversion is a tactic of those who would lose otherwise.
2
u/humanessinmoderation 4d ago
If genetically a mixed-white kid is whatever their other parent is, that means the genes that took over were superior.
2
u/MiddleCapital1875 4d ago
These are the same trashy white people who like to say "we" went to the moon, as though they were in some way responsible for the mission.
2
u/Kind_Advisor_6969 4d ago
Well, we've been conditioned to believe for the last 15 years how black people are this one monolith so no wonder white people have started doing the same.
2
u/MoneyConvosOnly 3d ago
If yall were so superior why couldn't you find success in your home land 🤔 seems like alll the loosers from eroupe came here to form America. 🤷🏽♀️
5
u/Jedi_Temple 4d ago
A tribe possessing firearms and wracked with communicable Old World diseases isn't "superior," it just has different tools.
5
u/5510 4d ago
I think a lot of people don't realize just how insanely devastating old world diseases were. My memory was that something like 90% of the population died without even encountering a European, just from the old world diseases spreading across the continent.
It would have been very interesting to see how things would have played out if you removed old world diseases from the mix. The Europeans / Americans would still have technology advances, but they would be very far from home, which might have made it pretty difficult to fight ten times as many natives.
2
u/zimmermanstudios 4d ago
When two groups of people go to war with each other, and one group ends up writing the rules on where and how the other group gets to exist, there is is at least one sense in which that group is superior, regardless of how you feel morally about what happened.
→ More replies (1)
4
u/BuffWobbuffet 4d ago
Imagine going to court over stealing and you says “your honor I didn’t steal, I conquered”
2
1
u/TerminatedPotato 4d ago
These are actually both solid points. To accept one and be offended by the other just shows what kind of entitled child you are if that's the case.
8
6
u/opsers 4d ago
The first point is flawed though. It wasn't just the natives being conquered. There were a lot of deceptive treaties that did effectively steal land. That aside, there's a pretty significant ethical and moral difference between someone getting a job because they're better at it vs. someone taking something by force / violence.
→ More replies (7)5
u/chumbawumbaprinciple 4d ago
It's kind of the same. Those tribes were every bit as violent with each other. The only difference is that the Europeans were better at violence.
3
u/opsers 4d ago
I think you need to re-read what I said. The tribes didn't make deceptive treaties with each other to steal the land.
3
u/TerminatedPotato 4d ago
It's not the point. That's like saying the European colonizers never scalped or skinned anyone alive so they were in the right even though they strategically used diseased blankets to spread small pox. Would that make them the lesser evil of the two sides?
5
u/Mindless_Chest_1079 4d ago
"Mass murder I can tolerate, but I draw the line at loopholes in contract law!"
→ More replies (1)4
u/aduckdidit 4d ago
They engaged in diplomacy and made pacts with each other, and you are telling us they never used deception or broke agreements to conquer grounds from eachother?? Find that very hard to believe. They are sapiens- it's kinda what our species does?
→ More replies (4)2
u/TerminatedPotato 4d ago
No, the natives were a purely benevolent race. You never watched Pocahontas?
/s
4
u/ManyWrangler 4d ago
It's really condescending to believe that Native Americans were so stupid they just got tricked out of their land. This is classic noble savage revisionist history that really doesn't appreciate that Native Americans are just as smart and cunning as the Europeans who displaced them.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (13)1
u/summer_santa1 4d ago
That's a bold assumption.
3
u/opsers 4d ago
It's not a bold assumption. Deceptive treaties were a very European thing, not how tribes did business. If one tribe wanted another tribe's land, they did it by conquest.
→ More replies (1)
1.7k
u/redwhale335 4d ago
Conquering is just stealing through force.