There is no such thing as a “Natural Born Dual-Citizen“.
Originally Posted by PogueMoran
I didnt have to read the article to tell you that you cant read.
At any rate, if you wanted to apply your vulgar nationalism consistently, it would be long past time for you to realize that your artificial nation-state is constructed on the foundation of genocide, of spread of infectious disease, and of slaughter of non-combatants rather than honorable battle. Your "border" is the Atlantic Ocean.
[quote=Cochise;1058499661]Deny Pizzaro & Cortez all you want, but their conquests are indelibly etched in the history books......What you actually did was run away once I corrected your fallacious claim that the indigenous population of America was "conquered" by the English or Spanish...
It doesn't need to be justified, it simply is.......regardless, explain several things to me, great sachem. Firstly, are you seeking to provide ethical justification for the "conquest" of Amerindian society?
The victors generally prosper, the vanquished don't, you can draw your own conclusion.......Are you a social Darwinist; do you believe that "might makes right"?
There needs to be some sort of 'quality control', which is the purpose of the LEGAL immigration process.......Do you regard that as a viable ethical code that can govern day-to-day societal relations? If so, what is your objection to illegal immigration?
Is is imprudent to allow diseased criminals into our country unchecked....
It was the age of imperialism, it is incumbent upon the invaded to defend themselves......What is wrong with crime and with invasive entry if it was acceptable when conducted by the English and Spanish?
This holds true in any age though......
Asked & answered.......If not, then similarly, why was it acceptable when conducted by the English and Spanish? We await your insightful commentary.
And, if Scarecrow doesn't mind, I will field these as well.....
Wrong! He is enforcing the law....They're Arpaio's policies, else he would not be lauded as a unique figure by the authoritarian statists and petty nationalists.
Maybe quite a bit more zealously than some....
In fact, I would say those not performing to his standard are slackers.....
Laws are generated by common sense, ethics is generated from what makes you feel good.......What part of "vulgar nationalism" do these statists not comprehend? Your comment is bred of a petty fetish for the law above all else. This is problematic, as legal and ethical standards are frequently divergent and at times conflicting. Though slavery was at one time legal in the U.S., that did not make it ethical, and though slave liberation was illegal at the same time, that did not make it unethical. This is mentioned not because of any intent to claim that slavery and immigration are of equivalent moral status, but merely to illustrate the fact that the law and the ethical code might easily be at odds.
Again, you will have to get over it, & learn to live within the rules of society laid down by your conquerors or perish.....At any rate, if you wanted to apply your vulgar nationalism consistently, it would be long past time for you to realize that your artificial nation-state is constructed on the foundation of genocide, of spread of infectious disease, and of slaughter of non-combatants rather than honorable battle. Your "border" is the Atlantic Ocean.
If you want something different, you will have to work for it.....
Last edited by Partisan; 01-21-10 at 11:24 AM.
Seven Myths of the Spanish Conquest:
You have offered no response, no legitimate reply, the reason for this being that you do not have one. You are desperate to cling to the fallacious myths of total European superiority over the Native American population to justify your own equally fallacious mindset and worldviews. The problem with that is that the foundations are flawed. Why not provide actual counter-argument instead of mumbling that Indians should get over their "loss" and shrilly repeating the same talking points over and over again, as though you're blind and deaf? And why do you not even attempt to address the English "conquest"?Chapter 3 deals with what Restall calls "the Myth of the White Conquistador" — the belief that the Spanish conquest was accomplished by a small number of white Spaniards. Restall claims that much of the actual military operations was undertaken by the indigenous allies of the Conquistadors, outnumbering the actual Spanish forces by many hundreds to one. He also shows that there were several conquistadors of African and Moorish descent — dispelling the idea of the conquest as a victory of the "white Europeans" over the "red Indians"...Chapter 7 deals with what Restall calls "The Myth of Superiority" — the belief that the success of the Spanish conquest was due to either the supposed technological superiority of the Spaniards or a kind of inherent cultural superiority — and that Spanish victory was therefore inevitable. Restall claims that such technological advantages as handguns, cannons, steel armor, horses and dogs weren't of great consequence in the actual fighting since they were all in short supply, and that the Aztecs were not daunted by this new technology for long. He also refutes the notion that the Indians' lack of alphabetic writing constituted a major drawback. Nor were the Indians childlike, naive or cowardly in comparison with the Spanish such as many early Spanish sources have painted them. Restall argues that the factors behind the success of the conquistadors were mostly the devastating effect of European diseases for which the Indians had no resistance, the disunity between indigenous groups some of which allied with the Spaniards early, the technological advantage of the steel sword, native battle practices that were not upheld by the Spaniards — such as killing non-combatants and civilians, and most importantly the fact that the Indians were fighting on their own ground with their families and fields to care for, which made them quicker to compromise.
is-ought fallacy. The prescriptive cannot be derived from the descriptive. Try again, and I'd recommend making an attempt to answer the question this time: Was the genocide against Amerindians ethical or morally right? Its occurrence is quite apparent; I am inquiring about its morality. Do attempt to respond properly.
This man is a Mixtec immigrant from Oaxaca. He has more rights to walk this stolen land of the indigenous than you do, if we were to apply your petty little nationalism consistently...let me show you where the border is, son.
"He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
A suggestion: Give Texas back to Mexico and let them live there.