So once upon a time, you were free in your land. And now you’re happy to be another domesticated animal living in Animal Farm.
Is that it?
Great come back! Your silence speaks volumes louder than your words ever did.
And in what way has the American government made things better for the Native Americans and the Hawaiians compared to when they were hunting, fishing on their own lands governed by their own people?
So you took the hunting lands and fishing rivers and their great plains away from them…the places that for centuries that they exercised their skills and improved their economic lots. They had a certain culture and way that these Native Americans and Hawaiians wanted to live. But you didn’t need to understand all of that.
And now they are lazy worthless shits because why? Because they won’t compete in American Capitalism according to the rules set by “European Immigrants” who came to America a century ago?
How bloody convenient.
Maybe all the Native Americans and Hawaiians should unite and do the same.
I’m listening.
Are you suggesting that modern liberalism embraces this as a valid policy? Liberalism doesn’t say “all acts that a government might possibly take are good.” It says “it is possible for the government to do good.”
Are you equating modern American liberalism with “All government policies of 150+ years ago”? Because Liberals in the modern sense have nothing to do with that, nor would they approve of it. Most modern day conservatives either. There is no modern mainstream philosophy or political platform I know of that would endorse the trail of tears and Native American genocide.
I can’t believe I just stook up for conservatives… 
I suppose this is true, but it doesn’t say much. That’s accepted in everything short of anarchism… and judging by the anarchists these days, who seems to be rioting here and there for more government power and money, I’d say they hold it, too. I suppose there are a few arch-libertarians out there, but not bloody many.
I think you understand that that wasn’t meant to be a complete definition. It was merely emphasize the contrast with Shakabroh’s bizarre rant. And I think you also know that these terms are almost necessarily vague, overlapping, and fluid.
You forcibly ask a native population to join your way of life, promising them the sky if only they leave their ‘savage and backward barbaric ways to be included in your democratic society.’ And then when they naively and stupidly agree to be a part of your political process, you ignore their concerns because it is not part of your paradigm?
And what is your explanation about why it is that these Native Americans and Hawaiians are bitter and disillusioned and feeling cheated being a part of your political process? Are they imagining their frustration too? Is there no basis to it?
Is it because they are not politically savvy enough to be the loudest crying voice in all of liberalism? Is that what it takes to have their concerns addressed in your political process?
And then you have the audacity to take the moral high ground in demanding that the world trust your guidance in bringing American style Democracy to their countries…in the name of progress? In the name of advancement?
No, I’m not being sarcastic. Where is there a need for sarcasm, when you take so much pride in cleansing away someone else’s culture and leaving a vacuum where something organic grew?
And if that vacuum is causing health problems to the natives of the land, is that your problem or not?
Shakabroh, would you like to try to offer a comprehensible explanation of what you think this thread is actually about?
Is it a thread about all the historical and contemporary failings of American domestic and foreign policy?
Or is it really a question about what “liberalism” means?
Or is it just an opportunity to rant against America in general?
It would be helpful if you picked one and stuck with it.
I might add that you seem to think you are stinging us by criticizing American policy actions, some of them a century or more old. But criticism of policy actions that almost all of us disagree with doesn’t really sting.
I would say there are better ways to respond.
Considering the level of dialogue set by the OP, I don’t think there is evidence that any nuanced response would be welcome or understood. For the purposes of the exchange in question, I think my response was adequate.
I would certainly hope so.
All I am saying is that The United States is like a mother that neglects her own children.
But she wants to instruct the rest of the world about how they should raise their children. She tells all the children of the world to rebel against their mothers. She tells them to get freedom. And yet, look at Mother America. Mother America neglects the children in her care. She is so busy trying to manage the world while the children in her own home are dying and sick.
The Hawaiian and Native American children, these are Mother America’s foster children. These foster children had an inheritance. It is with this inheritance that Mother America today has a home. Mother America lives in this home with her natural born children. But she neglects her foster children. She enjoys the inherited riches of the foster children while neglecting taking care of them.
Mother America wants to show a great image in public as the benevolent messiah. But she hides the dirt of her own home well, just so she can show a great image to the world. This seems a little inconsistent.
She enjoys being popular and loved in public. She is a regular society woman. She preaches and talks a big game to the world. And yet, if anyone were to go through her own household, one would see neglect and disillusionment and heart ache many many places. She tries to sell herself as the Mother Theresa of the world, caring for all children in all backyards of the world while she neglects her foster children in her own backyard.
This is the condition of Mother America’s Old MacDonald Farm:
Sure Mama America has plenty of diversity in her Farm. But how well is she taking care of her foster children in this farm?
It is this apparent inconsistency in Mama America’s walk and talk that I find…questionable.
Why are you all having such a difficult time responding to this simple and straighforward issue?
Because it has nothing whatsoever to do with your original debate topic, which was (if you can recall), “Correcting my understanding of Liberalism”
You have now moved on to a simplistic rant about “America = Bad”
America = Bad Mama to her Native American and Native Hawaiian Foster Children.
Take it to another thread. This has nothing to do with this topic. You can rant there.
This has to be the oddest thread in a while. It’s bizarre that the conclusion he draws from this fairly true statement is that liberalism is bad, when liberals would be the ones most likely to support using taxpayer money for social programs to help these communities.
Was it ever determined what country shakabroh is from? He sounds like someone who grew up in a religious compound or something, I dunno where to start.