Even though I'm pretty liberal minded, and I agree that the Natives received atrocious treatment..the notion that there were no European ideologies related to freedom and inalienable rights is patently false. And you know it. If you don't know it, then you are ignorant on this particular matter and should do some unbiased research.

Not judging you, I even agree with you for the most part, just pointing out that our assertion made here is untrue.

I wouldn't be surprised if there was some influence. The Founders drew from all over the world for their inspirations. However, the assertion that it is THE influence, and that there were not democratic ideals in Europe, or elsewhere is simply untrue. On this we can definitely agree.

yes there where some Europeans, mainly the rich monarchies that had and education of the classic Greek democratic ideal. However, for the most part the mostly poor and illiterate Europeans that arrived in the Americas got their first exposure to individual freedom through interaction and conversing with Native peoples they encountered. I know my ancestors true history and I even know quite a bit about my European ancestors true history Thank you but my point still stands firm.

No, Western Civilization is better than any other so far.

I disagree. In our Founding principles and documents, there was virtually no influence of any importance from Native Americans.

However, there WERE many cultural influences and other benefits. Lewis and Clark could have never made it without help from Native Americans. We eat tomatoes, turkey, corn - all from Native Americans. They taught us ways to hunt, fish and even raise some crops. We have canoes, art.

We also have tobacco.....

Europeans who came to the colonies of England got their taste of freedom because they could own land, their labor was in demand, there were LAWS - EUROPEAN LAWS - that insured they could own property, tools and such, EUROPEAN LAWS that protected them from theft from other groups ("tribes'). Courts of law that were universal.

Wrong again Mish. the vast majority of European immigrants came here originally as indentured servants (basically slaves) and even those who "had land" did not own it as all land in the colonies belonged to the crown whether it was Spain in the south, the English on the east coast or the French in the Hudson Bay area. Those few men who where awarded land by their respective crowns where implacably tied too and where in support of their respective monarchies. It was primarily Merchants, tradesmen,and inventors like Benjamin Franklin who had dealings with native people and their societies. These men who mostly where just tired of getting worked over threw their weight behind some men who had land and wanted to make a go of leaving their extortionist feudal systems they came from and taking their que from the fact that the Natives of this land had accomplished what Europeans had only recently rediscovered through the renaissance they decided to have a go at the Greek ideal of a Democratic nation.

This is not a discussion it is a correction of your little historic rewrite above. Feel free to write more I will be happy to correct it.

{the vast majority of European immigrants came here originally as indentured servants (basically slaves)}

I know that. Most came voluntarily because they knew that they could work off debt. The average amount of time was about 7 years, then they were free to hire themselves out or start a business.

There were a good number of indentured servants who actually became our "Founders" and took part in the Constitutional Convention.

{and even those who "had land" did not own it as all land in the colonies belonged to the crown whether it was Spain in the south, the English on the east coast or the French in the Hudson Bay area.}

"Technically," that may be true, but for all practical purposes, they owned the land, and "property" extends beyond the idea of just land. It includes money, tools, and such.

"the fact that the Natives of this land had accomplished what Europeans had only recently rediscovered through the renaissance they decided to have a go at the Greek ideal of a Democratic nation."

The Native Americans had no real concept of human rights. Their "laws," if one can even call them that, applied to the immediate tribe. There was no concept of universal rights at all. No property rights, either. Most moved. Few set up anything permanent on any land, and virtually none developed the land.

You will undoubtedly claim that I am some kind of a racist and such, but that simply is not true. I am merely describing realities.

Since that notion is subjective I can't actually say you are wrong. In your subjective view it is, ergo it is. However that is not something that can be determined objectively.

I wasn't intending to assert that it was a fact, only that I could see it being feasible. That's all. It's not really something we can determine with absolute certainty. To me, it is a silly argument anyhow, only brought up in an attempt to elevate one culture (or race) above that of another. There's no other reason to bring it up.

Outside of the hard sciences, there is virtually nothing that can be determined objectively. But sometimes we are compelled to make choices - moral choices, value choices, personal choices. Otherwise we are frozen. How could we fight Nazism, for example, unless we had core beliefs? And they did, too - with a rationale. The line was drawn in the sand: We are right and they are wrong. Nothing more to be said: Stop what you are doing or face our military might.

Outside of the hard sciences, there is virtually nothing that can be determined objectively. But sometimes we are compelled to make choices - moral choices, value choices, personal choices. Otherwise we are frozen. How could we fight Nazism, for example, unless we had core beliefs? And they did, too - with a rationale. The line was drawn in the sand: We are right and they are wrong. Nothing more to be said: Stop what you are doing or face our military might.

"To me, it is a silly argument anyhow, only brought up in an attempt to elevate one culture (or race) above that of another. There's no other reason to bring it up."

As usual, you hit the proverbial nail squarely on the head.

The reason I react strongly is that in virtually every such case, it is simply a way to attack Western culture. This was a method that stemmed mainly from the Frankfurt School: Attack the underlying values of the culture.

I can explain more if you like.

True, though in fairness we are not talking about moral stances here. We are talking about the nature of what is better as far as a society is concerned. There are trade offs as I see it. There were many things from history I would rather see most of us do because I think it is better. I think it would be better if people grew a large portion of their food themselves. I think it would be better if people were more spread out and not concentrated into such dense metropolitan centers. I'd like to see more self reliance and personal social interactions (as opposed to internet interactions). So I suppose it would be more accurate to say that we have made many things better, but we have also made many things worse.

No, I understand the methodology. I also understand the reaction. It's akin to "throwing the baby out with the bath water." Which of course is dangerous ignorance.

But you are omitting something: Choice. I will agree that most of the things you outlined are the "better life," but we can choose that if we like. And the less government we have, the more choices.

For example, I remember one person who worked for the same resource center as I did in Alaska. He would not tell anyone where he lived. I figured out that he set up a trailor on some public land, and he generated his own electricity. He did not want to deal with government experts and bureaucrats telling him how to put wires in his place, safety, etc.

I have lived in Tokyo and in bush Alaska. One just chooses.

I do not see how we have made things worse. Please give me examples.

Yes. It is quite the irony that these Left-winger anti-Western culture advocates are actually using Western techniques and technology in their attacks on the West.

For example, one unique thing about the West - and may ultimately destroy it - is the emphasis to try to detatch and reflect on itself. Other cultures do not do that. The West will step back and criticize itself, and even condemn itself. Can you imagine Islamic cultures doing that? China? They may be objective and step back when it comes to some policy about economics, but not their own values.

Was reading that the GOP in NM is trying to mess around with voter ID there too. It's gonna be interesting watching them shoot themselves in the foot.

Really tho right lol [thumbs up]

rather they shoot themselves in their empty heads myself.

Racist, and insecure!

Yeppers.

Well said [thumbs up]

Thanks, Matlock!

"think any mention of history of any people besides white people is somehow an attack on white people"

Yes, there are people like that, just as there are people who think that mentioning and celebrating the glorious achievements of those of European background implies racism or some such balderdash.

It is important to notice the content: Often the history of non-European groups is for the purpose of demeaning and diminishing the wonderful achievements and brilliance of those of a European heritage. That is the important issue and reveals the intent of the "historian."