Anonymous #1 1w

No less of an invading force than the original US immigrant population

-4

Anonymous OP 1w

well no because they aren’t committing genocide and ethnic cleansing 🫤

17

Anonymous #2 1w

90-95% of american indians died from disease spread, which with few exceptions was entirely unintentional The natives that lived there also committed genocide to inhabit that land themselves Or is it different because you can’t see past the brown…

-2

Anonymous OP 1w

literally none of what you said changed what i said

5

Anonymous #2 1w

My point is that it’s far more nuanced than X group died and Y group survived and it’s ignorant of history to claim it’s black and white

-1

Anonymous OP 1w

it can be nuanced and still not make it accurate to say immigrants today are as harmful and bad intentioned as original colonizing forces in america

6

Anonymous OP 1w

Yes if you ask native Americans their gripes are totally about the disease and not that their people were massacred, their treaties broken, their land stolen, and their children forced into death-filled assimilationist boarding schools

3

Anonymous #2 1w

Sure but the financial outcomes are disastarous Look at any european country that’s currently dealing with that Along with the cost, they’re extremely radicalized, have high crime rates, are a danger to women, and have displaced people culturally (only europe for this statement)

1

Anonymous #2 1w

And this is my opinion having been to europe and spoken to many europeans and many women

4

Anonymous OP 1w

oops still not genocide, ethnic cleansing, and mass murder so not remotely comparable 🫤

4

Anonymous #2 1w

That doesn’t discount the fact that it’s still disastarous. It’s basically bankrupting Europe right now. It’s a logical fallacy to say “well it’s not as bad as this other thing so it’s alright”

-1

Anonymous OP 1w

Were the bison the Native people relied on killed en masse by disease as well?

4

Anonymous OP 1w

you claimed immigrants today are just as significant of an invading force as original colonizers implying the severity and scale is the same which is unequivocally false none of what you’re still yapping about changes that

5

Anonymous #2 1w

You’re mistaking the forest for the trees. The actual number of deaths by direct conflict is very low. In 115 years of american indian wars the total number of deaths is less than a 1000 annually. But my point is not about the murder and more about the quantity, displacement of people, assimilation, and the financial burden. In 1950 90% of the US was white. Now it’s about 56%. You cannot deny that statistically the reduction is insane.

0

Anonymous OP 1w

I personally don’t have a problem with white people not being a vast majority of the U.S. population.

8

Anonymous OP 1w

ok well murder is worse than all of those things so still not equivalent. also you’re complaining about harms not from direct conflict but disregard the harms not from direct conflict from colonizing forces so yeah you’re making no sense

1

Anonymous #2 1w

Philosophically I’d disagree. Small amounts of murder are not worse than tons of people having worse socioeconomic factors. Let’s say the unemployment rate rises as a result of immigration (happening in europe). Well then, statistically tens of thousands die as the result of that.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Hey is unemployment rate rising as a result of immigration in the USA? No? So why are you bringing up Europe?

5

Anonymous OP 1w

go back and respond to the part where you disregarded “indirect” deaths caused by colonizers but use it as your main point against immigrants

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 1w

I do when they don’t assimilate. Culture being displaced by foreigners. Tired of having to deal with the lived experience of many of these people. They’re not all that way, but those that do are unamerican. Where I’m from it’s specifically one ethnic group that ignores laws and causes mass damage to our environment here. I am also a part of that ethnic group so it’s very conflicting (i’m not white).

0

Anonymous OP 1w

“I’m not bigoted against people, I just wish they would stop talking about their cultures! I don’t want to hear them!”

4

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 1w

I have no problem with people talking about their cultures. I do have a problem when people disobey the law and ride their dirt bike around in traffic with a foreign flag in their hand and a burning police car in the background

0

Anonymous OP 1w

hold on answer my question

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Dude is literally saying the shit they said about the Irish and Italians back in the day

1

Anonymous OP 1w

So you want to stop immigration so you stop seeing people wave foreign flags? Because if your goal is to stop immigration to stop crime, that’s not gonna go well.

6

Anonymous #2 1w

That’s fair but diseases is not controllable (at least not at the time) yet assimilation and economic outcomes are entirely controllable.

1

Anonymous #3 1w

Irish and italians overall have/had the same patriotic goals.

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 1w

Yes, imagine I illegally moved to Japan and did a burnout in the middle of shibuya crossing while waving an american flag and setting a police car on fire

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Would you do that before or after this hypothetical Japan created a secret police to put American immigrants in concentration camps?

1

Anonymous OP 1w

The Irish were considered violent alcoholic political agitators obsessed with facilitating Irish independence. A battalion of Irish immigrants even attempted to invade Canada at one point. Italians were known for their association with anarchist violence, including a string of bombings in New York. They were further suspected of disloyalty during world war 2. The Irish formed ethnic gangs and the Italians brought the mafia from Italy.

6

Anonymous OP 1w

It’s a good thing the Irish and Italians never fly foreign flags (if you ever go to New England they are everywhere)

6

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 1w

I hate ICE and trump and what they’ve done with it. I have voted blue in every election. Next question.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

1. spread of disease is absolutely preventable there’s an entire field dedicated to it (public health) 2. they also ensured widespread death by wiping out food sources and separating populations from crucial resources

8

Anonymous OP 1w

You didn’t answer the question, though???

1

Anonymous OP 1w

You also never answered my bison question, dude.

1

Anonymous #3 1w

Tbf they were pretty bad back then But they also assimilated.

1

Anonymous #3 1w

In fact even this statistical stuff about “the proportion of white has decreased” is directly tied to the xenophobia of the 1920s. The immigration act of 1924 was passed to include immigration quotas of the current white ethnic composition of the United States, because anglos were scared that the poles, Greeks, and Italians were going to overtake them.

1

Anonymous #2 1w

1. Did you not see the part I said (at the time) 2. Yes killing the bison was bad

1

Anonymous #3 1w

Those groups are basically also white These other groups are not

1

Anonymous OP 1w

I asked you about what killed the bison and (taking the time to extrapolate) WHY they were nearly wiped out. Again you give me a response that answers nothing.

3

Anonymous OP 1w

Disease did heavily impact indigenous communities, but it didn’t erase them. It largely just weakened them. It left them vulnerable to genocide. Had that genocide not occurred, most of their communities would have completely recovered.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Also, trail of tears. Your point is moot.

1

Anonymous ireallylikepancakes 1w

Because they’re a native food source. What about it

1

Anonymous #3 1w

Erased 95% of them

1

Anonymous #3 1w

Brb y’all I got a dick appt with a dude off grindr Yes I only bottom for white dudes call me racist

1

Anonymous OP 1w

Whiteness is a social construct. Back then, they didn’t meet the definition of Anglo superiority and were thus considered inferior. Latinos and middle easterners have also legally been considered white for decades. Who is “white” varies by time and place.

1

Anonymous OP 1w

The bison were killed to put increasing levels of pressure on the native populations, which undermines your argument that the native people weren’t directly killed by the settlers. If I prevented you from eating for a week, I would still be charged with murder. “I didn’t kill them, starvation did.” Does not hold up in court.

5

Anonymous OP 1w

People were not erased from their lands by disease. They are not on reservations because of disease. They are on reservations because they were subject to coordinated eradication campaigns. The trail of tears, the California genocide, the eradication of the bison.

7

Anonymous #3 1w

And if you ask native communities today what their biggest issues are, it’s usually more recent stuff. It’s the residential schools, and federal termination, and the destruction of reservation lands. That’s not disease, that happened long after the disease had already been introduced.

5

Anonymous OP 1w

frameworks and concepts of public health existed back then even including ideas about disease prevention they only developed it further once colonizers got into significant danger so no they just didn’t care about native health

4

Anonymous OP 1w

update: girl i can’t walk omfg 😭

1