---

It's just proof that people unknowingly stereotype and we would all be better off with our own people.

---

Care to provide evidence for this assertion? The study mentions nothing of the sort.

-------
Massive, epic adventure, multi-coloured, multi-layered.
Sort of two/three dimensional Wizard of Oz for the future.

---

1. No proof
2. They were defending their hunting territory which was being destroyed.
3. Don't they have a right to exist and defend their existence?  

Or only whites have that right?

---

I have said many times that people should've stayed in their own lands.

---

Care to provide evidence for this assertion? The study mentions nothing of the sort.

---

---

---

1. No proof
2. They were defending their hunting territory which was being destroyed.
3. Don't they have a right to exist and defend their existence?

Or only whites have that right?

---

1. No proof on the other side either!
2. Some of them are reported to have ATTACKED ON SIGHT.
3. They all do - but then again only about 6% of the Amerind population ever existed in the USA - most were in South America.

I have said many times that people should've stayed in their own lands.

 

 

---

Care to provide evidence for this assertion? The study mentions nothing of the sort.

---

It's an opinion.
"Better off" is what you make it - correct?

---

What about the Native Americans? Also as history shows which you insist on denying it was Europeans who couldn't stay in Europe am I right?

-------
"When you do things right.
People won't be sure you've done anything at all" ~ God like space cloud

---

What about the Native Americans? Also as history shows which you insist on denying it was Europeans who couldn't stay in Europe am I right?

---

They have a right to exist - though only about 6% of the population of Amerinds ever lived in the USA.

-------
"One of the Germans... would frequently snatch a child from the
woman's arms and... tear the child in half... Such incidents...
occurred all the time." - A Year in Treblinka, Yankel Wiernik,
Treblinka's "most authoritative eyewitness"

---

---

What about the Native Americans? Also as history shows which you insist on denying it was Europeans who couldn't stay in Europe am I right?

---

What about the Amerinds?

They have a right to exist - though only about 6% of the population of Amerinds ever lived in the USA.

---

What about the Native Americans? <-------Don't avoid the question again.

-------
"When you do things right.
People won't be sure you've done anything at all" ~ God like space cloud

---

What about the Native Americans? <-------Don't avoid the question again.

---

Ask me a question about the Amerinds and I'll answer - but not something bland like "What about the Amerinds?"

-------
"One of the Germans... would frequently snatch a child from the
woman's arms and... tear the child in half... Such incidents...
occurred all the time." - A Year in Treblinka, Yankel Wiernik,
Treblinka's "most authoritative eyewitness"

---

---

What about the Native Americans? <-------Don't avoid the question again.

---

I'm not trying to avoid it - I don't know what you're asking!

Ask me a question about the Amerinds and I'll answer - but not something bland like "What about the Amerinds?"

---

The Native Americans were in North America before the Europeans. They were attacked and had their land taken?

-------
"When you do things right.
People won't be sure you've done anything at all" ~ God like space cloud

---

The Native Americans were in North America before the Europeans. They were attacked and had their land taken?

---

http://www.valpo.edu/news/news.php?releaseId=3625
http://www.barnesreview.org/html/mayjune1999lead.html

2. It's in controversy WHO attacked first. Some accounts by Europeans claimed they were attacked right when they landed. Some claim they heard of attacks and saw Amerinds coming with weaponry and felt the need to protect themselves and fight first. Some Amerinds say that Whites deliberately attacked them.

3. Land taken? Much of it was traded. Heard of an "Indian giver"?

Amerinds would trade land for weapons and horses and liquor (they loved that fire-water) - turn around and attack the land-owners and take it back.

Were the Europeans 100% clean? No.
Were the Amerinds perfect angels? No.

How many times have I said I don't approve of that though?

Whites could've stayed in their own land - but they didn't. My fault? Nope.

Do two wrongs make a right?

-------
"One of the Germans... would frequently snatch a child from the
woman's arms and... tear the child in half... Such incidents...
occurred all the time." - A Year in Treblinka, Yankel Wiernik,
Treblinka's "most authoritative eyewitness"

---

---

The Native Americans were in North America before the Europeans. They were attacked and had their land taken?

---

1. There is controversy on who the first Americans were - so I use the racial term "Amerind"

http://www.valpo.edu/news/news.php?releaseId=3625
http://www.barnesreview.org/html/mayjune1999lead.html

 
2. It's in controversy WHO attacked first. Some accounts by Europeans claimed they were attacked right when they landed. Some claim they heard of attacks and saw Amerinds coming with weaponry and felt the need to protect themselves and fight first. Some Amerinds say that Whites deliberately attacked them.

 

3. Land taken? Much of it was traded. Heard of an "Indian giver"?

Amerinds would trade land for weapons and horses and liquor (they loved that fire-water) - turn around and attack the land-owners and take it back.

 
Were the Europeans 100% clean? No.
Were the Amerinds perfect angels? No.

 
How many times have I said I don't approve of that though?

Whites could've stayed in their own land - but they didn't. My fault? Nope.

Do two wrongs make a right?

---

It's not your fault but you are always talking as if the "Non-whites" should have stayed in their countries. If your not trying to say it you shouldn't word it like that.

As history shown the Native Americans were viewed as savage and walked over for their land. It's not like The Europeans viewed them as equal and said " Hay I will trade you". It's funny how you continually twist around common history. The Natives attacked because they viewed the people with white faces strange and dangerous. Sure there may have been some acts by the natives but if the Europeans stayed in their land and not try to take others.............

-------
"When you do things right.
People won't be sure you've done anything at all" ~ God like space cloud

---

It's not your fault but you are always talking as if the "Non-whites" should have stayed in their countries. If your not trying to say it you shouldn't word it like that.

As history shown the Native Americans were viewed as savage and walked over for their land. It's not like The Europeans viewed them as equal and said " Hay I will trade you". It's funny how you continually twist around common history. The Natives attacked because they viewed the people with white faces strange and dangerous. Sure there may have been some acts by the natives but if the Europeans stayed in their land and not try to take others.............

---

White Europeans found them inferior and savage - and thus they wanted nothing to do with them. They created their own settlements and were attacked by Amerinds - and they attacked Amerinds too.

Strange and dangerous? Same with the Amerinds - Whites thought they were strange, dangerous, savage beasts.

The Europeans TRADED much of the land - they BOUGHT much of it. All of it? No - but much of it, if not most.

Amerind tribes weren't unified with each other - they were constantly warring and when a new combatant came to the playing field - they often sided with them to take over their enemies and gave land as a reward.

-------
"One of the Germans... would frequently snatch a child from the
woman's arms and... tear the child in half... Such incidents...
occurred all the time." - A Year in Treblinka, Yankel Wiernik,
Treblinka's "most authoritative eyewitness"

---

Quote: from kidd rune at 8:58 pm on Nov. 26, 2008

---

It's just proof that people unknowingly stereotype and we would all be better off with our own people.

---

Care to provide evidence for this assertion? The study mentions nothing of the sort.

---

---

Funny how KR failed to answer that question. Maybe he got shit for evidence so it'd be hard for him though.

---

I said:

---

It's an opinion.
"Better off" is what you make it - correct?

---

Good job Jakelong.

-------
"One of the Germans... would frequently snatch a child from the
woman's arms and... tear the child in half... Such incidents...
occurred all the time." - A Year in Treblinka, Yankel Wiernik,
Treblinka's "most authoritative eyewitness"

---

1. No proof on the other side either!

---

---

2. Some of them are reported to have ATTACKED ON SIGHT.

---

---

3. They all do - but then again only about 6% of the Amerind population ever existed in the USA - most were in South America.

---

---

I have said many times that people should've stayed in their own lands.

---

America is more desirable.

-------
dont wonder why im not smiling, wonder why you are.

---

Then YOUR claim fails.

---

---

When your hunting grounds and game was slaughtered then you just show up st the person's door and attack yeah.

---

This also happened in Australia - there's a whole book written on it I don't recall the name though.

---

So? Even more reason to defend your source of food as much as possible.

---

---

You mean Europeans? You have regrets your ancestors sacrificed everything to come over to the US? Thats pretty ungrateful. And not to "proud"

---

You don't know anything about my ancestors or why they came here!

---

Countries of one typical race live in Africa at the moment because very few people actually want to live in a war torn place. There are many tribal issues and water shortages etc. that make Africa not the best desirable place to live for most people.

America is more desirable.

---