This "European" recognizes lands Original heritage

[knlwtchr 0]

Lets remember and not forget how this land was obtained. Indians were'nt merely culturally conformed, but were overtaken completely by Europeans. Its too bad they didnt decide to just exist outside of each others territories and leave each other alone. Its just like that old sayng, "Cant we all just get along?"

 

What do you think? Perhaps it's time for our (in our, I mean, human beings) OWN Prime Directive?

 

((Lets have healthy discussion here. No slander.))

[Kansas_Jones 0]

Lets remember and not forget how this land was obtained.  Indians were'nt merely culturally conformed, but were overtaken completely by Europeans.  Its too bad they didnt decide to just exist outside of each others territories and leave each other alone.  Its just like that old sayng, "Cant we all just get along?" 

 

What do you think?  Perhaps it's time for our (in our, I mean, human beings) OWN Prime Directive?

 

((Lets have healthy discussion here.  No slander.))

At the time of the overtaking of the then natives of the US, all of the world powers (namely England with their powerful command of the sea, and the Spanish and French) were basically in a "mad dash" to expand boundaries and explore / conquer everthing in sight due to advancement in technologies / industry. The Indian peoples on the East Coast, the Midwest and West Coast, as well as South and Central America, were, well, in the WRONG places at the WORST possible times.

 

Modern times? I personally believe that an unwritten "Prime Directive" is now used by the modern countries. Will the United States go and conquer and occupy England? I don't think so. Canada invade the US? No. At least I hope not. ^_^ In these modern times, all the continents here on the Earth are pretty well divided up now among all the peoples. Some cultures have been compromised or lost along the way, or others have been born.

 

International boundaries? Well, there it gets kind of sticky. Usually when a International boundary is breached, a war follows.

 

Third world countries? If the tribal way of doing things is in place, then usually that involves the conquer and survive mentality that was employed earlier by England and France and Spain, then peoples will still be fighting.

 

Another example of "expand, conquer, my boundaries, your in my way" would be the flare ups between the current tribes of Africa, or even gangs in New York or any other big city. I'm not even going to mention the Middle East and all the various factions there vying for power with one another.

 

Overall, there is a modern "Prime Directive" and for the MOST part, we all exist among one another within our current boundaries that were either given or taken. The human prime directive is not perfect.

Edited July 4, 2005 by Kansas_Jones

[knlwtchr 0]

Good points. Lets not forget the civil wars still going on, as you meantioned, KJ, like in Korea (STILL). I love the notion brought about in "Generations" that humans realized they "weren't alone" in the universe and it brought them together in a unique way. Yeah, I know, its just movie glamour, but its still a very nice idea. I am so sick of hearing about stories, even in the states, of profiling, prejudice, EOE (A wonderful idea, but that we actually NEED it is atrocious), and calling groups of human beings "minorities". It makes it sound like they are lesser people or not as important.

 

Whats the TRUE reason for wars? Is it really property? Money? Or (my personal belief) Power?

[Nicolas Lepage 0]

The Indian peoples on the East Coast, the Midwest and West Coast, as well as South and Central America, were, well, in the WRONG places at the WORST possible times.

 

Modern times? I personally believe that an unwritten "Prime Directive" is now used by the modern countries. Will the United States go and conquer and occupy England? I don't think so. Canada invade the US? No. At least I hope not.  ^_^ In these modern times, all the continents here on the Earth are pretty well divided up now among all the peoples. Some cultures have been compromised or lost along the way, or others have been born.

 

As for being in the wrong place at the worst possible times...so were African peoples. Remember that all of the African continent once belonged mainly to the English and French, some parts to the Germans and Dutch. Now that was just the way imperialism was. Back then everybody thought that the more territory a country possessed the more powerful a nation it would be. Just think about the recources they had not to mention slaves. So Europeans in their all ignorant manner went and conquered all those countries with their so called underdeveloped cultures considering themselves superior for the simple reason they wore clothes (might be a bit simplyfied but basically that's it).

 

Does the Prime Directive not basically state that Federation does not interfere in the way an "undeveloped" planet develops? So that would be those who have not yet developed warp technology. Federation waits to contact them until they are ready. So I think Kansas is right when she says that the countries she mentioned would not invade eachother but those are all countries that are very well developed. But think about the third world countries. We do not really conquer them but we make sure they depend on us e.g financially because we trade with them. Neither do we seem to be too scrupulous providing them with weapons for their wars (at least our companies are not).

So if there is a Prime Directive we seem to temporarily forget it as soon as there's profit involved.

Edited July 4, 2005 by Nicolas Lepage

[knlwtchr 0]

So if there is a Prime Directive we seem to temporarily forget it as soon as there's profit involved.

No kidding. Money does make the world go round, certainly. But, those who do have money we give the most power. And I really think thats the ROOT of peoples motivation in most things. Hopefully, humans will shift interest from power hunger to understanding.

Edited July 4, 2005 by knlwtchr

[Kansas_Jones 0]

Does the Prime Directive not basically state that Federation does not interfere in the way an "undeveloped" planet develops?

 

Okay, this topic got me thinking of some questions:

 

If another country really needs help, or is attacked (say, in a September 11 type of attack), would a "prime directive" or international boundaries prevent other countries from helping?

 

If aliens DID arrive, does everyone feel that all the peoples of Earth would band together and eventually reach the Star Trek level of co operation?

 

And answering knlwtchr: I would think money and power are very strong influences in the international game. Although, I would like to think giving aid and helping will be stronger some day.

[Kansas_Jones 0]

Ok let's start with a little something from Data...

 

"In the year 2016, the new United Nations declared that no Earth citizen could be made to answer for the crimes of their race or forbearers."

 

And I'd like to make a few adjustments of my own...

 

"No human being should be made to feel guilty about the alleged crimes of their forefathers."

 

Now that we got that out of the way, what else are we going to include in this Prime Directive?

It would be nice to look toward the future and not be concerned with the past wouldn't it? But, what about that saying "History repeats itself"?

 

Hopefully, mistakes can be learned from and then we move on. ^_^

[Nicolas Lepage 0]

 

If another country really needs help, or is attacked (say, in a September 11 type of attack), would a "prime directive" or international boundaries prevent other countries from helping?

 

If aliens DID arrive, does everyone feel that all the peoples of Earth would band together and eventually reach the Star Trek level of co operation?

 

And answering knlwtchr: I would think money and power are very strong influences in the international game. Although, I would like to think giving aid and helping will be stronger some day.

I don't think that international boundaries would prevent other countries from helping those countries. Neither would a "Prime Directive". The way it works in Star Trek is that planets are left to themselves until they are ready to learn that there are other species. Now on earth I would say we can safely assume that all nations are aware of the exsitence of other nations. So if we were to have a "Prime Directive" it would have to be a modified one.

 

I don't know whether the arrival of aliens would actually lead to any Star Trek like level of co-operation but we can always hope.

 

Well looking into the future without being concerned about the past is somewhat difficult. There are so many things happening today that you can only fully understand when you know about the past. I know this from personal experience. I am German and I think I don't have to explain much about our more or less recent history. And it still affects us. Being too patriotic can be a problem. Put up a flag in your yard and you'll get weird looks. In some countries it can easily happen to you that as soon as you're identified as German they call "Heil Hitler" after you. That's how history can be very present even today. There are other reasons for being concerned about the past. Why shouldn't we try and learn from history just for once? I am not talking about ancient Greece and the beginning of democracy here, I am talking about things that happened in the late 20th century.

Edited July 4, 2005 by Nicolas Lepage

[knlwtchr 0]

Why shouldn't we try and learn from history just for once? I am not talking about ancient Greece and the beginning of democracy here, I am talking about things that happened in the late 20th century.

No kidding, again! Why is that? Why dont people learn from past mistakes/victories? It always boggles my mind how people come from a long line of drinkers or smokers or whatever, and even THEY continue the behaviors they claim to abhor. We see continually people driving drunk, taking up smoking or drug addictions, and even stupid things like leaving children in dangerous situations. And we wonder why bad things happen when we do? Hello?

 

Kansas brings up another good point. We do seem to band together when someone needs aide. That is true. I just wish it were more consistant.

Edited July 5, 2005 by knlwtchr

[Images 0]

Lets remember and not forget how this land was obtained. Indians were'nt merely culturally conformed, but were overtaken completely by Europeans. Its too bad they didnt decide to just exist outside of each others territories and leave each other alone. Its just like that old sayng, "Cant we all just get along?"

 

What do you think? Perhaps it's time for our (in our, I mean, human beings) OWN Prime Directive?

 

((Lets have healthy discussion here. No slander.))

Well actually just as a correction, under British law, the land belonging to the native Americans was untouchable and also it was illegal to sell them alcohol...it was after the revolution that that went out the window.

[Nicolas Lepage 0]

It always boggles my mind how people come from a long line of drinkers or smokers or whatever, and even THEY continue the behaviors they claim to abhor.

I know this does not really belong to this thread but I want to say that you do not simply become an alcoholic. There's more to it that simply drinking too much. It takes a certain kind of peronality and of course the circumstances play a role. I'm not saying that as the child of an alcoholic you will be an alcoholic eventually but it also takes the strength and the will to change yourself.

 

Back to history. I think why we repeat all those mistakes others have done before is simple. All parents out there know this. Your daughter/son is about to do something really stupid and you tell them not to do it. You don't tell them because you want to spoil their fun (that's what they think) but because you may have experienced that it's better not to do it. So even if you tell them "Listen,kid, I know what will happen. I've been there." Would they listen? Fat chance! We always tend to believe that we are smarter than those who've done it before only to find out afterwards that we're not. Experience is something you have AFTER you needed it. And I think it takes a change in attitude to be able to learn from history.

[Images 0]

No kidding, again! Why is that? Why dont people learn from past mistakes/victories? It always boggles my mind how people come from a long line of drinkers or smokers or whatever, and even THEY continue the behaviors they claim to abhor. We see continually people driving drunk, taking up smoking or drug addictions, and even stupid things like leaving children in dangerous situations. And we wonder why bad things happen when we do? Hello?

Well I like smoking, I like drinking and occasionally I like to smoke the drug that all students and hippies smoke. Quite a few people I know do (maybe not all 3 like me, but hell most of those people do!) that doesn't really automatically make them drunk drivers or nutters or such. It is not the substance, it is the person that uses the substance and how they use it. If you drink and drive, you're an ass, if you smoke round a group of small kids, you're an ass but if i wanna have quite a few beers with the guys and smoke quite a few cigs and I do it with them, there should be no problem.

 

Yeah its a rant of all rants but I needed to yell.

[Nemesis 0]

First off stop saying Europeans, it was the British colonies and the Spanish who were responsible for this. I say British colonies because Britain didn't really care until the Aboriginal attacks began to increase, and were costly to them. Anyways, I should make this aware I am Metis, this means that I am part French and part first nation. I am 1/6th mohawk, that's an Iroquios nation (which is a built up alliance of the the Senecas, the Cayugas, the Onondagas, the Oneidas, and the Mohawks) they were allies to the English, and did their trading with the English.

 

Now on about the French, the french had made friends with most of the Eastern aboriginal peoples. First the Mi'Kmaq in the Port Royal area, which now known as Annapolis Royal (This is where my ancestors have been since 1635, but even earlier in 1604 during the first Champlain voyage, my ancestor was first mate to Champlain). Anyways, the French made Friends with the Mi'Kmaq, and then later on Champlian decided to go down to what is now modern day Quebec, and he made friends with the Algonquin. Making friends with the Algonquin is what made Champlian instant enemies with the Iroquios becuase the Iroquios were enemies of the Algonquin.

 

The British colonies however basically forcing the first nations into the Ohio valley (one of the causes of the American Revolution). This was not however the same for the Iroquios because the English took advantage of them, and allied against them so they could compete better in the fur trade. How ever the Iroquios furs were not as good as the Algonquin ones because the Algonquin were middle men between the French and the Cree, the Cree pelts were bigger because they were further north.

 

Oh yeah about the Aboriginals, well the trouble really started for the Canadian aboriginal in the 7 years war, or what Americans call the French-Indian war. Well when the French were defeated, in North America at least the british decided to keep the Ohio valley a first nation only area except for the french who would use it for fur trading in the English name. Well the Americans didn't like this, because well they fought the French basically so they could get this area, and even though the British made the area a first nation only area for the safety of it's colonist well this helped to bring about the American Revolution.

 

So there was some fighting the Natives didn't know who to cide with, the British or the Americans. Some cided with the Americans for if they helped in the revolution the Americans would allow them to keep their land, and the ones who cided with the British believed that the Americans would drive them out. Soooo then the American revolution is won and the natives who helped the Americans are driven out and the ones who helped the British are abandoned by the British for the most part.

 

Well the next corner stone is the war of 1812 when the French, English, and natives of B.N.A banded together against the natives. You had natives who were now Canadian heroes, such as Tecumsah our lawn mower is named after him. Well B.N.A wins the war (yes they did because the Americans didn't gain anything) and basically all members of B.N.A now think of themselves as Canadians rather than just the french. Well now comes the sad part, Canada is now an independent state, the Dominion of Canada. Our first Prime Minister Sir John A. MacDonald who basically destroyed all the relationships built up with the natives in his quest to build the railroad. What he did basically is what is still hurting the natives in Canada.

 

The moral of this story, it wasn't the European governments that destroyed the native cultures but rather the European settlers.

[knlwtchr 0]

Well actually just as a correction, under British law, the land belonging to the native Americans was untouchable and also it was illegal to sell them alcohol...it was after the revolution that that went out the window.

Oh, ok. Thank you, I didnt know that. =0]

[knlwtchr 0]

First off stop saying Europeans, it was the British colonies and the Spanish who were responsible for this.

 

The moral of this story, it wasn't the European governments that destroyed the native cultures but rather the European settlers.

Wow! Thanks for the info, Nem. See? This is the kind of banter I was hoping for. Wonderful. I was only calling them Europeans because that is what its called today. But, eventually, I got even YOU to call them that. Heh heh. =0]

 

This is what I mean. Everyone thinks the US government was started on such high moral standards and integrity. We just dont know the half of it.

[Nemesis 0]

Wow! Thanks for the info, Nem. See? This is the kind of banter I was hoping for. Wonderful. I was only calling them Europeans because that is what its called today. But, eventually, I got even YOU to call them that. Heh heh. =0]

 

This is what I mean. Everyone thinks the US government was started on such high moral standards and integrity. We just dont know the half of it.

I originally had it as English settlers, but then I realized it might ruffle a few feathers.

[Darrik 0]

Well actually just as a correction, under British law, the land belonging to the native Americans was untouchable and also it was illegal to sell them alcohol...it was after the revolution that that went out the window.

But, the reason that the British wouldn't allow the colonists to go into the Indian territory was because if the colonists did, they would be moving to far away for the King to control the colonists.

[Nemesis 0]

But, the reason that the British wouldn't allow the colonists to go into the Indian territory was because if the colonists did, they would be moving to far away for the King to control the colonists.

No, that was revolutionary propaganda to encourage an uprising. The King was in fact protecting the colonists by placing that in so there would be less conflict in the area and less reason the natives to attack. Also it was to award the Iroquios for their help during the 7 years war, and to help with the fur trade to pay for the costs of war they had been spending.

[Darrik 0]

 

Whats the TRUE reason for wars? Is it really property? Money? Or (my personal belief) Power?

You want to know the TRUE reason for wars? Religion (also fear, but religion causes the fear). Yes, religion. More people have died in the name of Jesus than any other cause, which, when I think about it, it's kinda funny how so many people are willing to kill each other because they disagree on the details of some science fiction stories. Which, if you think that we should remove property, money, and power to stop wars, we also need to eliminate god from the picture.

 

 

One more thing!

 

"Oh the Catholics Hate the Protestants,

and the Protestants hate the Catholics,

and the Moslems hate the Hindus

---and everybody hates the Jews!"

[knlwtchr 0]

More people have died in the name of Jesus than any other cause, which, when I think about it, it's kinda funny how so many people are willing to kill each other because they disagree on the details of some science fiction stories.

Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. I dont want to turn this into a debate about religion (mans laws for man), because really, religion has nothing to do with God. I love the little poem, though! =0]

Edited July 5, 2005 by knlwtchr

[Nicolas Lepage 0]

You want to know the TRUE reason for wars? Religion (also fear, but religion causes the fear). Yes, religion. More people have died in the name of Jesus than any other cause, which, when I think about it, it's kinda funny how so many people are willing to kill each other because they disagree on the details of some science fiction stories. Which, if you think that we should remove property, money, and power to stop wars, we also need to eliminate god from the picture.

 

 

One more thing!

 

"Oh the Catholics Hate the Protestants,

and the Protestants hate the Catholics,

and the Moslems hate the Hindus

---and everybody hates the Jews!"

I had meant to mention that before but then I thought I might offend someone. But now that you've started it I can safely pursue this subject.

The thing with religion is that it's never been the true reason for wars. It has simply been a means to convince the majority that a war was legitimate. Think about all those wars in Europe that have been fought in the name of the church or the Crusades. It was not about defending anyone's beliefs it was about power. Religion was just very convenient to use as a pretended cause. And religion also served as a motivation for the majority. If you go to a war believing you are fighting for a good cause, for your God you'll always fight better than going to a war just because your king tells you to.

[Darrik 0]

I had meant to mention that before but then I thought I might offend someone. But now that you've started it I can safely pursue this subject.

The thing with religion is that it's never been the true reason for wars. It has simply been a means to convince the majority that a war was legitimate. Think about all those wars in Europe that have been fought in the name of the church or the Crusades. It was not about defending anyone's beliefs it was about power. Religion was just very convenient to use as a pretended cause. And religion also served as a motivation for the majority. If you go to a war believing you are fighting for a good cause, for your God you'll always fight better than going to a war just because your king tells you to.

so what were all the wars fought between the Calvinists and the Catholics back in the 1500s for?

[Nicolas Lepage 0]

Calvinists posed a threat to the authority of the Catholic church. Can you imagine the influence they lost due to the Calvinists?

[Darrik 0]

Calvinists posed a threat to the authority of the Catholic church. Can you imagine the influence they lost due to the Calvinists?

Calvin suggested that the church should change their ways, but the church wouldn't, because their beliefs were right (in their mind) and his were wrong. When he left, the Catholics fought the Protestants so that their religion would be the one that everyone worships. And, the reason that they had to cease fire (or swinging, or ramming, or shooting, or whatever they used for weapons) was partly because they were spending money and men fighting those Turks (which was also religious in nature).

[Nemesis 0]

I think some people might find that poem a bit offensive. I mean A) Muslims is misspelled, and B ) the comment about the Jews...