14 ms·
Your joke inadvertently shows the error in your logic. “America” (in the sense of the nation) didn’t exist in 1493. Various Indian nations existed in this land.
by rayiner 5mo ago
Your joke inadvertently shows the error in your logic. “America” (in the sense of the nation) didn’t exist in 1493. Various Indian nations existed in this land. British people didn’t “immigrate” to those Indian societies. They created a new society on the land. They were settler colonizers, as the kids say these days.
- purerandomness 5mo ago> Your joke I'm not amused. Are you amused? > They created a new society on the land. I see my message didn't quite get through. You're almost there however. Think one step further: What stops the next "immigrants" from renaming your cute "society" that you currently have there, and declare a proper, civilized society, with a proper culture for once?
- rayiner 5mo agoNothing! If a superior civilization comes to America and wipes it out and builds a new society in its place, then those people will also be “settlers” not “immigrants.”
- mktk1001 5mo agoDo you mean the kind of superior civilization that progressed from chattel slavery to being run by a cabal of pedophiles?
- rayiner 5mo agoThe kind that invented the internet and the airplane and the microchip and put a man on the moon.
- callmeal 5mo ago> The kind that invented the internet Seriously did not expect a MiniTel reference here. Vive Le France‽ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minitel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minitel
- rayiner 5mo agoARPAnet had already been out a decade by then. TCP/IP was standardized the same year MiniTel came out.
- Dylan16807 5mo agoI'm worried about your use of "superior" here but yeah the rest of that is right.
- remarkEon 5mo agoWhy? It is demonstrably superior. If it wasn’t we wouldn’t be debating whether it’s immoral to not let everyone else on the planet in.
- fpoling 5mo agoThe only real advantage of European settlers was smallpox immunity. If not for that the history could move in a very different direction.
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- remarkEon 5mo agoThis entire thread is filled with people willfully lying about history like you are right now. It’s incredible to see. I can’t tell if it’s because this is a simple is vs ought distinction and you are having a hard to reconciling your ought with the is.
- Dylan16807 5mo agoEh. I wouldn't say only but it was the biggest advantage. The Europeans brought better tech and bad racism along with the terrible diseases. If they had established trade without disasters we might have seen the natives be very successful too.
- fpoling 5mo agoIn his last book “The Dawn of Everything” David Graeber very convincingly argued that the idea of modern democracy came from Indian tribes in Northern America. And it is also interesting how easily European countries went back to authoritarian or even totalitarian states given the opportunity. Yet US is more resilient and one explanation is subtle influence of Indian culture that still affects US. As for technological advantage of Europe then 3000 years ago Ancient Egypt was way more advanced than Europe. 1000 years ago Arabic countries were more advance and 500 years ago China was more advanced. And Europe was lucky that China was focused on internal problems and not territorial expansion.
- VerifiedReports 5mo agoAh, that explains the Israeli "settlers" in Gaza.
- conception 5mo agoI think it’s telling that you have the opinion that a superior civilization would wipe out another at all.
- drnick1 5mo ago> Think one step further: What stops the next "immigrants" from renaming your cute "society" that you currently have there, and declare a proper, civilized society, with a proper culture for once? Nothing, but it is our right, as Trump does, to call that an invasion and forcibly reject it.
- bvanheu 5mo ago[flagged]
- rayiner 5mo agoThe legally correct term is “Indian.” Obviously they had their own names for themselves. “First Nations” and “Native” are terms that are not rooted either in Indians’ names for themselves nor in the U.S. government’s name for them.
- satvikpendem 5mo agoAs an actual Indian from India I do get annoyed that Columbus's misconception has lived on this long, although I understand there's nothing I can do to change that.
- rayiner 5mo agoAt this rate they’ll fix the ambiguity by fully adopting Bharat.
- mondrian 5mo agoOf course native people didn’t call themselves Indian prior to settlers assigning them that name, with legal consequences. But native people usually refer to their tribe identity, like Diné or Lakota, rather than the generic term Indian.
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- sillysaurusx 5mo agoCGP Grey argues this same point: not only is Indian the legally correct term, but it’s the correct term in general. https://youtu.be/kh88fVP2FWQ?si=touZCydc-7jckeLh https://youtu.be/kh88fVP2FWQ?si=touZCydc-7jckeLh
- 5mo ago