[paraclete]

Vac you have your assumptions wrong again. kennewick man has been shown to be related to the north americans of the area and to be 8.5k-9.5k before now so not preexistent.

[talaniman]

Slavery in what became the United States probably began with the arrival of "20 and odd" enslaved Africans to the British colony of Virginia, in 1619. It officially ended with the ratification of the 13th Amendment in 1865./National Geographic

[Vacuum7]

Athos: O.K., here is a link that should work: https://www.science-frontiers.com/sf109/sf109p02.htm

Kennewick man is a Caucasian "of skeleton" and Caucasian terms have been given to Ainu of northern Japan, so the man may have not been "White" but he sure as heck wasn't "Native American"/Indian, either.

Yes, there may be a "Native American" skull hiding somewhere that we haven't found but with so many people searching to try and delegitimize Kennewick Man as being older than "Native Americans", don't you think we would have found one? Probably means there isn't one! "native Americans" were fairly blood thirsty when it came to rivals: Kennewick Man most likely died at the hands of "Native Americans".

Athos: No, I'll admit: Some 80 years after the creation of the U.S., we did, in fact, continue Slavery AND PROBABLY would have continued it longer if not the Southern States not attempted to succeed from the Union and precipitated The Civil War: The Civil War was a war fought over SUCCESSION, freeing the Slaves was a sidebar and in no way the initiator of the war.

[paraclete]

No, I'll admit: Some 80 years after the creation of the U.S., we did, in fact, continue Slavery AND PROBABLY would have continued it longer if not the Southern States not attempted to succeed from the Union and precipitated The Civil War: The Civil War was a war fought over SUCCESSION, freeing the Slaves was a sidebar and in no way the initiator of the war.

I think you are a little one eyed and still carry the stars and cross bars. The Civil War began when there was succession, this is true, However, the anti-slavery movement precipitated this. Lincoln didn't want to free the slaves because he was as racist as any in america and did not want negros in the US, it became politically expedient to emancipate the slaves in order to pressure the South. The strategy didn't work, the South did not immediately collapse. I personally cannot see why the south could not have been allowed to succeed without the need for war, they were not an industrial economy and eventually would have wanted to rejoin

[Athos]

Yes, there may be a "Native American" skull hiding somewhere that we haven't found but with so many people searching to try and delegitimize Kennewick Man as being older than "Native Americans", don't you think we would have found one? Probably means there isn't one! "native Americans" were fairly blood thirsty when it came to rivals: Kennewick Man most likely died at the hands of "Native Americans".

Nonsense.

The Civil War: The Civil War was a war fought over SUCCESSION, freeing the Slaves was a sidebar and in no way the initiator of the war.

Typical "soth'ren" revisionist history.

By the way, to both of you - the word is "secession" NOT "succession".

[paraclete]

either way it sucks

[Vacuum7]

Paraclete and Athos: The PRIMARY CAUSE of the Civil War was the Tariff Of Abominations/Tariff Of 1828 that threatened to cripple the Southern economy...this provoked eventual SECCESSION (thank you Athos for straightening me out on the spelling!): The Civil War was not fought for the HIGH MORAL REASON of freeing Slaves! What a joke: White men killing each other for the benefit of Slaves? YOU MUST BE KIDDING! Didn't happen. Northern high-browed ideas floated out there that they did makes them feel "more honorable than the South", is pure fantasy. Ask yourself: Where are RACE relations better today, North or South? Answer who has had RACE RIOTS? Its not the South, its the more "liberal" areas of the country: Detroit, Boston, L.A......you can even go back and research it, the South "gets along" with race better than the North: We grew up with Blacks, worked with Blacks, played with Blacks, eat with Blacks, fought with Black, and prayed with Blacks: I have know MANY, MANY Northerners than did know, play, fight, work, or eat with any Blacks growing up! Yet, those same individuals will be quick to condemn the South and Southern people...to them, I politely say "go to hell."

Paraclete: Stars and Bars in the eyes? That dog won't hunt! I don't have any affiliation to "the South" in terms of heritage: My heritage came to the U.S. after the Civil War, on both sides of the family. I do love the Southern U.S. and wouldn't live anywhere else, by choice.

Athos: "Native Americans" claim as "THE" original INDIGENOUS PEOPLE of the Americas is highly suspect with the finding of evidence that counters that claim....not a sure thing, anymore. I know that the "Native Americans" wanted to monopolize this arena of CLAIM but that is questionable now.

[talaniman]

The Civil War started when the confederacy fired on Fort Sumter in 1861, and yes southerners always try to rewrite the history to make it about everything, but slavery, that was the main issue and economics of it. They didn't want it abolished, plain and simple.

We can update the white boy skeleton story a bit with subsequent facts being revealed.

[Athos]

Paraclete and Athos: The PRIMARY CAUSE of the Civil War was the Tariff Of Abominations/Tariff Of 1828 that threatened to cripple the Southern economy...this provoked eventual SECCESSION (thank you Athos for straightening me out on the spelling!):

You still don't have the spelling right - one "C".

The rest of your rant is just that - a rant.

Athos: "Native Americans" claim as "THE" original INDIGENOUS PEOPLE of the Americas is highly suspect with the finding of evidence that counters that claim....not a sure thing, anymore. I know that the "Native Americans" wanted to monopolize this arena of CLAIM but that is questionable now.

Your "caucasian skull" has been definitively identified via DNA as North American Indian heritage. The courts affirmed this and the remains were handed over to the Native Americans for burial. See Tal's link.

So, no more "questionable". Easily found via an internet search. It's becoming more and more apparent you're less interested in the truth than in your own fantasies.

[paraclete]

You still don't have the spelling right - one "C".

The rest of your rant is just that - a rant.


.

You see they will just have to face it, there were native peoples indigenous to the americas before they were " liberated " using tactics somewhat familiar in the twentieth century. What you call manifest destiny, Hitler called living space

[Vacuum7]

Paraclete: The U.S., like Australia, has plenty of lebensraum. Population density is not a problem…..arable land is not a problem in the U.S., either.....there may have been a lust for more land by people but lebensraum was not the driving force. Germany had a desire for lebensraum based of the factual population densities of the time and the projected growth expectations of the Reich going forward and they looked eastward. However, in one of the most boneheaded decisions in history, the Wehrmacht entered a very Germanic seeded Ukraine, where people were overjoyed to have them come in and liberate them from the Bolsheviks, and immediately sealed their fate by the wholesale slaughter of the people there by the S.S. units that followed up the rear.....these stupid actions turned even German blooded Ukrainians against German occupation and effectively invited partisan efforts against them.

[paraclete]

Paraclete: The U.S., like Australia, has plenty of lebensraum. Population density is not a problem…..arable land is not a problem in the U.S., either.....there may have been a lust for more land by people but lebensraum was not the driving force. Germany had a desire for lebensraum based of the factual population densities of the time and the projected growth expectations of the Reich going forward and they looked eastward. However, in one of the most boneheaded decisions in history, the Wehrmacht entered a very Germanic seeded Ukraine, where people were overjoyed to have them come in and liberate them from the Bolsheviks, and immediately sealed their fate by the wholesale slaughter of the people there by the S.S. units that followed up the rear.....these stupid actions turned even German blooded Ukrainians against German occupation and effectively invited partisan efforts against them.

Well you might think we have plenty but we actually don't, we have lots of desert and little water, towns and cities are running out of water, so please don't come unless you bring your own. Noone doubts the nazi were stupid, but you are a denyer that the same policies once had favour in your nation

[Vacuum7]

Paraclete: The U.S. used to fight TOTAL WAR before bastard politicians involved themselves in military affairs: It was much cleaner and very decisive in terms of the U.S. WINNING THE WAR. Once the politicians got involved, the U.S. was satisfied with police actions and conflicts: not decisive actions where the enemy was brutally beaten into UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER so that their mindsets would be forever changed and their aggressive behaviors eliminated (i.e. threat removed): IT WAS CALLED FINISHING THE JOB so there was no debate about who won the damn war. We fought TOTAL WAR against the "Native Americans", that's what you are referencing. Hitler fought TOTAL WAR. However, the similarities between Nazi Germany and The U.S. stop right there: The U.S. didn't build extermination camps or slave labor camps like the Germans....or the Italians....or the Soviets.....or the Japanese....or the North Koreans....or the ChiComs: You do see the difference, don't you?

[talaniman]

Like Veit Nam Korea and Africa, Iraq? Naw we didn't even win WWII without a lot of help from others Vac. Stop trying to rewrite history like we can just go and take over. America is great because we have great alliances, and that's the truth. It's still not a slam dunk!

[paraclete]

V7, you conveniently forgot you had to be dragged kicking and screaming into WWII. Until Pearl Harbour it was just a profitable opportunity for you while the rest of us did the heavy lifting and even in 1945 it was the Russians who brought Germany to unconditional surrender. Back then that difference existed, I'm unsure it still does

[Vacuum7]

Paraclete: America should be dragged KICKING AND SCREAMING into ANY WAR! We should avoid war whenever possible and not be so happy to rush into wars or other conflicts. The world's problems are not always the U.S.'s problems.....and we should be very selective about the fights that we engage in: Any conflict that the U.S. enters into should be based upon a decision of whether or not the U.S. getting into that particular conflict is in the best NATIONAL INTEREST of the U.S.....and that should be the only determinant for entry. The world has proven, time and time again, that it doesn't much like the U.S. and, so, the U.S. should not volunteer itself or avail itself of its most precious of resources so easily.

Paraclete: You may have also forgot the U.S. got TRICKED into joining WWI by Mr. Winston Churchill, who was Minister Of War at the time: He publicly broadcast that the Lusitania was carrying armaments when he knew that it wasn't but he knew it was carry U.S. citizens....this ploy was so that Germans would torpedo the Lusitania and the U.S. would enter WWI. This is the kind of sh&$ that we have to be on guard for: WE WON'T GET FOOLED AGAIN!

[talaniman]

I think Iraq screwed up our minds and the terrorists attacks didn't help either.

[Wondergirl]

Paraclete: America should be dragged KICKING AND SCREAMING into ANY WAR! We should avoid war whenever possible and not be so happy to rush into wars or other conflicts.

Those two sentences negate each other.

[paraclete]

Vac, I was calling your hypocrasy, you cannot play the good guy and sit on the fence

[Vacuum7]

W.G.: How do you figure that those two sentences negate one another? When I say "America SHOULD BE dragged kicking and screaming into wars" I mean that we should debate, protest, and fight not to go to war FIRST before we actually go to war! Its better to really examine the issues and the stakes before blindly walking into something from which you cannot so easily extract yourself......it means we SHOULD AVOID WARS if possible.

Paraclete: No, the U.S. needs to change tactics and change its WORLDVIEW: We don't have to be the "GOOD GUYS" any more than any other nation needs to be the "GOOD GUYS"....and, we have every right to sit on the fence for eternity, if we wish: If being the "GOOD GUYS" means getting involved in every violent conflict around the world, we certainly don't need to be the "GOOD GUYS"......The U.S. needs to break the cycle of pain that the Military-Industrial Complex has involved us in: Just because we HAVE NICE WEAPONS doesn't mean we have to use them.....and involving yourself in a conflict and having nice weapons but not using them is entirely RETARDED: If we do fight, the RULES OF ENGAGEMENT should be such that preserving every U.S. Service Member should be the ultimate goal: To hell with fighting fair!