APP - Overpopulation Myth

Taichiliberal said:
Actually, it was the European ideals and culture of indentured servitude and property ownership, and socio-political ideals that led to slavery and a culture of failure. The native tribes that were here for thousands of years had learned quite well to live WITH the land, and had thriving civilizations. It can work, just don't repeat the mistakes of the past
Click to expand...

Indentured servitude did lead to slavery, but it particularly led to Americans getting used to the idea of treating people with brutality, as our white indentures had about a 40% death rate.

If you have a problem with property, then obviously you should steer clear of a free, Lockean society. Nice cliched communist talking points, though.
 
Threedee said:
Indentured servitude did lead to slavery, but it particularly led to Americans getting used to the idea of treating people with brutality, as our white indentures had about a 40% death rate.

Big difference between being a slave brought over on a slave ship from the African continent, and being an indentured servant who made the choice to come to America with the promise/hope of eventually working towards independence. I get sick and tired of people trying to put them on equal footing.

If you have a problem with property, then obviously you should steer clear of a free, Lockean society. Nice cliched communist talking points, though.
Click to expand...


Oh spare me the bullshit, will ya? Every blessed time someone points out the flaws as to how the European social/economic edicts screwed over the native Americans and has lead to our current problems, jokers like you start wailing about communism. I said mistakes could have been AVOIDED so that our land would NOT be in the dire ecological straits that it is...never said anything about switching to communism. Deal with it.
 
You are the one who attacked property rights. I said nothing about property or communism until you chimed in with your drivel.

The sociological study of indentured servitude is the best way to understand how chattel slavery developed in the US. Ultimately, the only differences between the two were race (whites didn't become slaves, obviously), time of service (5-12 years vs. life), and the middle passage and choice, of course.

People grew cultural accustomed to treating indentured servants so miserably that many tried to escape, and 40% of them died while in service. Also, masters increasingly reneged on parts of their contracts, such as refusing to pay out pieces of land and/or financial promises to outgoing servants. It was a system with great promise that quickly turned barbaric. Unlike with slaves, there is no particular reason for an indenture to have longevity, when you will be letting them go free in a maximum of 12 years.
 
Threedee said:
You are the one who attacked property rights. I said nothing about property or communism until you chimed in with your drivel.

How is pointing out the historical facts and flaws of American history "attacking" property rights? Nowhere did I state that property rights should be abolished, and I defy you to provide proof via a quote where I did. If you can't, then your BS about communism is just that...BS.

The sociological study of indentured servitude is the best way to understand how chattel slavery developed in the US. Ultimately, the only differences between the two were race (whites didn't become slaves, obviously), time of service (5-12 years vs. life), and the middle passage and choice, of course.

Bull fucking shit! When you can provide documented, historical proof that Europeans of a certain economic class were captured against their will, stuffed into the bowels of ships, sent to America and then sold at auctions, etc., not treating as a whole human being based on race, etc...then you may have a case. Until then, you repeat a lame and tired effort by some to diminish the sheer racial evilness of American slavery by those who perpetraited it.

People grew cultural accustomed to treating indentured servants so miserably that many tried to escape, and 40% of them died while in service. Also, masters increasingly reneged on parts of their contracts, such as refusing to pay out pieces of land and/or financial promises to outgoing servants. It was a system with great promise that quickly turned barbaric. Unlike with slaves, there is no particular reason for an indenture to have longevity, when you will be letting them go free in a maximum of 12 years.
Click to expand...

Let's cut to the chase: No one debates the sheer barbarity of the indentured servant/caste system that Europeans brought to America. But as bad as it got, it was NOTHING compared to the horror of slavery that Africans endured....which in America lasted for what, 3 centuries? White supremacists with delusions of intellectualism have for years tried this tactic in order to try and dismiss the legitmacy in pointing out Americas congenital racism and it's legacy on current society.

That being said, my statement about over-population and one of its causes remain a valid point of discussion.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Let's cut to the chase: No one debates the sheer barbarity of the indentured servant/caste system that Europeans brought to America. But as bad as it got, it was NOTHING compared to the horror of slavery that Africans endured....which in America lasted for what, 3 centuries? White supremacists with delusions of intellectualism have for years tried this tactic in order to try and dismiss the legitmacy in pointing out Americas congenital racism and it's legacy on current society.

That being said, my statement about over-population and one of its causes remain a valid point of discussion.
Click to expand...

This is what you said:

Taichiliberal said:
Actually, it was the European ideals and culture of indentured servitude and property ownership, and socio-political ideals that led to slavery and a culture of failure. The native tribes that were here for thousands of years had learned quite well to live WITH the land, and had thriving civilizations. It can work, just don't repeat the mistakes of the past
Click to expand...

You loped property rights in with indentured servitude, as leading to slavery. Why, I'm not sure, but you did anyway. In case you never noticed, Native Americans wared with one another, almost always because one tribe ventured too far into another's territory. They may not have adopted the concept of property and ownership rights the way Europeans did, but they were certainly territorial as Europeans were. Everyone has their limits.

And no, it cannot work when the ideal is liberty. If the ideal is merely a pacified mass of subjects, then removing their rights and claims to property will certainly help achieve that end. At least, it may help crush their spirit, so that they are a less likely threat to the system.
 
Threedee said:
You loped property rights in with indentured servitude, as leading to slavery. Why, I'm not sure, but you did anyway. In case you never noticed, Native Americans wared with one another, almost always because one tribe ventured too far into another's territory. They may not have adopted the concept of property and ownership rights the way Europeans did, but they were certainly territorial as Europeans were. Everyone has their limits.
Click to expand...

It had less to do with property rights/territory and more to do with this.
 
More slaves went to the middleast than the americas, but they cut all their nuts off, so the modern population doesn't reflect the blackness.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Let's cut to the chase: No one debates the sheer barbarity of the indentured servant/caste system that Europeans brought to America. But as bad as it got, it was NOTHING compared to the horror of slavery that Africans endured....which in America lasted for what, 3 centuries? White supremacists with delusions of intellectualism have for years tried this tactic in order to try and dismiss the legitmacy in pointing out Americas congenital racism and it's legacy on current society.

That being said, my statement about over-population and one of its causes remain a valid point of discussion.
Click to expand...

Threedee said:
This is what you said:

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Actually, it was the European ideals and culture of indentured servitude and property ownership, and socio-political ideals that led to slavery and a culture of failure. The native tribes that were here for thousands of years had learned quite well to live WITH the land, and had thriving civilizations. It can work, just don't repeat the mistakes of the past
Click to expand...

You loped property rights in with indentured servitude, as leading to slavery.
Why, I'm not sure, but you did anyway.

No, I pointed out a COMBINATION, not put each item on equal level per se. And again, there is NOTHING inaccurate about what I wrote.

In case you never noticed, Native Americans wared with one another, almost always because one tribe ventured too far into another's territory. They may not have adopted the concept of property and ownership rights the way Europeans did, but they were certainly territorial as Europeans were. Everyone has their limits.

I never stated that the Native people were perfect or immune to ideas of territory. What I have stated from the outset is that the Europeans brought over THERE PARTICULAR IDEA OF PROPERTY (or territory, if you like). They enforced that onto a new landscape...and the results are deforestation, pollution and over-population. In other words, what they did to Europe, they did here. The various Native tribes lived WITH the land....which is why in certain regions you had HUGE NATIONS of certain tribes....but WITH a thriving eco-system.

And no, it cannot work when the ideal is liberty. It already did, as history shows. If the ideal is merely a pacified mass of subjects, then removing their rights and claims to property will certainly help achieve that end. At least, it may help crush their spirit, so that they are a less likely threat to the system.
Click to expand...
Well, the ideal is for people to live and thrive for generations without fucking up the environment for future generations. No one said anything about "pacification" of the masses. Again, you keep trying to enforce some paranoid vision of a communist takeover based on an aversion to a simple, logical analysis of what a total industrializes nation has wrought upon the very land we depend on to survive. Once you create an artificial environment, you create artificial results. Our technology/industrial based society gives us the illusion that people can have as many kids as they want without reprocussions. NOTE THAT I'M NOT SAYING THAT OVER-POPULATION WOULDN'T EVENTUALLY HAPPEN IN AN AGRARIAN BASED SOCIETY(which does NOT mean throwing out capitalism, or industry), but the rate of population growth would be more in ratio as to what the earth could provide.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Well, the ideal is for people to live and thrive for generations without fucking up the environment for future generations. No one said anything about "pacification" of the masses. Again, you keep trying to enforce some paranoid vision of a communist takeover based on an aversion to a simple, logical analysis of what a total industrializes nation has wrought upon the very land we depend on to survive. Once you create an artificial environment, you create artificial results. Our technology/industrial based society gives us the illusion that people can have as many kids as they want without reprocussions. NOTE THAT I'M NOT SAYING THAT OVER-POPULATION WOULDN'T EVENTUALLY HAPPEN IN AN AGRARIAN BASED SOCIETY(which does NOT mean throwing out capitalism, or industry), but the rate of population growth would be more in ratio as to what the earth could provide.
Click to expand...

We're not even close to the maximum human carrying capacity of earth.

This scarcity mentality is just fearmongering to get people to agree to genocide against others.
 
AssHatZombie said:
And you act like white people invented it. I understand. My comments are apropos.
Click to expand...

You're repeating yourself, yet you provide no proof to back up your accusation. What did I specifically state that gives cause for your assertion? Copy and paste it here, then we have a point of discussion beyond your general opinion.
 
AssHatZombie said:
We're not even close to the maximum human carrying capacity of earth.

This scarcity mentality is just fearmongering to get people to agree to genocide against others.
Click to expand...

Now, stop and think what you are saying....."maximum human capacity".....exactly what are the living conditions required to reach that? Right now you have areas of poverty all over the world that are indications of what life would be like just approaching what you allude to here (case in point, a fire reported today in Brazil's vast shanty town area). Are you willing to live in such conditions? Or condemn your children or grand children to such a fate?

And just where did I advocate genocide? If you cannot produce a quote from me that states or alludes to such, then you are grossly misinterpreting what I am saying.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Well, the ideal is for people to live and thrive for generations without fucking up the environment for future generations. No one said anything about "pacification" of the masses. Again, you keep trying to enforce some paranoid vision of a communist takeover based on an aversion to a simple, logical analysis of what a total industrializes nation has wrought upon the very land we depend on to survive. Once you create an artificial environment, you create artificial results. Our technology/industrial based society gives us the illusion that people can have as many kids as they want without reprocussions. NOTE THAT I'M NOT SAYING THAT OVER-POPULATION WOULDN'T EVENTUALLY HAPPEN IN AN AGRARIAN BASED SOCIETY(which does NOT mean throwing out capitalism, or industry), but the rate of population growth would be more in ratio as to what the earth could provide.
Click to expand...

1) I consider criticism of property rights and ownership to be an indication of tyranny.

2) While pollution is far greater, there are actually more trees standing in the US today than there were in 1776. Deforestation may be occurring in Brazil, and other parts of the world, but it is not something we can really do anything about.

3) I actually don't think over-population would occur naturally in an agrarian society, because lack of scientific and technological progress would ensure a lower quality of life, and less access to underdeveloped medicines, etc. The reason why the populations of India and China are able to occur is a result of Western influence, such as volumes of bioengineered wheat to people in India (who would otherwise die of mass starvations) and the advances China has seen in the past 20 years, becoming a world power.
 
Damocles said:
You know little. One tribe and one song do not a culture encapsulate, let alone several hundred different cultures. The idea that all Native Americans were and are together on any issue is ridiculous, had they been the whites would never have been able to take over this place.
Click to expand...

I know little? Besides your grievous lack of humor name one culture that does not protect their females who are at the beginning of their child bearing age. That was what the song was about. Running Bear wanted Little White Dove and that wasn't going to happen in this life.

However, they did go to the great hunting ground in the sky.
 
apple0154 said:
I know little? Besides your grievous lack of humor name one culture that does not protect their females who are at the beginning of their child bearing age. That was what the song was about. Running Bear wanted Little White Dove and that wasn't going to happen in this life.

However, they did go to the great hunting ground in the sky.
Click to expand...
I know what the song was about. However you simply passed over my point. There were many cultures among Native Americans that employed many of the techniques you consider barbaric even now. Including slavery, torture and other things. They were not one homogeneous people, nor were they all superior in their character.

Different cultures looked at territory differently, however there were wars consistently over territory. It was what fed you, housed you, and what you knew. Just like the previous poster stated, most of the wars between native American tribes was over exactly that. One can couch it into "well they fought for their kids"... but so could somebody today speak of current military actions. Even ones that were preemptive.

Simply put, had Native Americans been one people the US would not exist as Native Americans would not have lost those wars. And even when some saw what was happening and how to solve it Native Americans could not resolve the differences enough to come together to fight off the greater enemy.

We constantly look at what the white people did to this place and work to show the negatives of their actions, yet ignore the negative aspects of the Native Cultures they fought against. The whites were not always the demon depicted in the current more popular versions of history.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top