Trump's Payroll Tax Cut Will Kill Social Security by 2023

[Specter Von Baren]

That is pretty cool that you could participate in that. It was funny, Back in 2006, I told my friend that the Hopi were running to Mexcio City, just like they have for thousands of years, they thought it insane, they were like "Run?!!" like with their feet?" and couldn't believe that people actually do that. LMAO. They didn't realize that people just did this all the time for a very long time. HAHA! Native Americans still call the mountains, rivers and valleys what we always have. It's not our fault if other's didn't bother asking what the name was before going and renaming everything. XD

I sometimes wonder how things would have turned out if the initial wave of germs hadn't weakened the Native American societies before the Europeans even came in contact with most of them.

Edit: Ah, also, do you have any good book recommendations for learning about the Native American tribes?

 

[stroopwafel]

They being Europeans, who had a long history of constantly at war with one another until they get bored of that and go and kill everyone else. What was their excuse for killing their own people as well then? If your point was true, the Native Americans would have seen them the same way, but they didn't because not all cultures viewed others or being different the same as you do. It was to the detriment of Native Americans because we saw them as family and treated them as such, because that was the way for thousands of years and we had no reason to think otherwise.

Yeah, because tribes were closely related and didn't have outside enemies. Minor differences between tribes aren't important in the face of a common threat. What is needed is just one tribe to enforce it's dominance(in this case the Spanish royalty). The Austrian/Habsburg line subjugated almost the entirety of the European continent under the Spanish monarch Charles V. You know very little of European history to gather the entire continent under the same banner because that couldn't be further from the thruth. Charles V and Filips II were hated in the Netherlands as well for sending the Duke of Alba to suppress the Dutch revolt. You know what actually united the Low Countries? Indeed, a common enemy. Tribalism even exceeded loyalty to the Catholic church and defiance of the pope by rejecting the Habsburg monarch something the Duke tried to subjugate through the Council of Troubles. Tribalism as it's precursor to a national identity accomplished what the pope, the almighty monarch and the Reformation could not: establish sovereignty and a common purpose. That is how strong a motivator it was even contrasted to the overwhelming powers and steep internal differences at the time.

The Europeans who invaded are the culture who rewarded that degenerate behavior, not the Native Americans. That genocidal behavior was socially conditioned in to the Europeans through the constant self inflicted conflict and rewarding people for it, not a natural state of being. If no one had been rewarded for it in Europe, they wouldn't have been socially conditioned to behave that way when they came over here. The point is this was a result of conditioning, not that everyone does it.

Because the Indians never had the kind of power the Habsburg dynasty had. The Castilians in Spain would have kept to their own as well with their art collections and high culture. But because of the mores of the time they had no choice but be protectors of the Crown. For them it was similarly, adapt or die. That is why conflicts increase when tribes are united because as the population grows the access to resources becomes more important. This was settled into permanence with the Treaty of Westphalia and the emergence of the modern nation state in 1648. One tribe will always prioritize it's own interests over the other. It has been that way since time immemorial. It's so ingrained in human instinct that 'us vs them' persists to this day whether between nations or within.

When you start reading through European history, it is abundantly apparent they constantly murdered one another for wealth, power, sex, or just because they didn't like the other person EVEN AMONG THEIR OWN FAMILY, trying to get " support" to kill other groups for being different was just one excuse among many that they invented as a reason to do so. They really seemed to like killing each other for a good long while from the looks of their history though. They really come across as people ruled by genocidal maniacs for the most part tbh.

Europe became the center of art, culture and philosophy that shaped pretty much the entire civilized world during the Renaissance that ended the Dark Ages and broke the monopoly of religion through Enlightment that enabled, science, progress and technology. Something we are still reaping the benefits from. But it's also the continent that showed, like no other, the self-destructive forces of tribalism that can tear entire nations to pieces.

 

[lil devils x]

I sometimes wonder how things would have turned out if the initial wave of germs hadn't weakened the Native American societies before the Europeans even came in contact with most of them.

Edit: Ah, also, do you have any good book recommendations for learning about the Native American tribes?

Not sure about books, as everything I was taught was from just being Native American. XD
The histories that are passed down are oral histories, not written, so I think most of the books are actually just from an outside perspective. You pretty much have to learn about each tribe individually to be able to understand that tribe's unique culture as they are all different.

Speaking of which, I always find it funny and have to laugh when I read something about Native Americans that is like from this perspective of a researcher examining an alien species in a petri dish...

For example when they say something like this:
" The possibility of voyaging contact between prehistoric Polynesian and Native American populations has long intrigued researchers. " .. what is so funny about that is if they had just asked the tribes, they could have told you the answer already. 1) Some tribes came to the Americans via boats through Polynesia according to many tribes actual oral histories about themselves and other tribes. 2) Tribes continued to trade with Polynesia all the way up until being enslaved by Europeans. SO like when researchers act all shocked that they found Australian Aboriginal DNA in the Americas.. It is funny to me, because if they had just asked the tribes, we could have told you that already... I really do have to wonder why they never bothered even asking tbh. LOL

 

[tstorm823]

Incorrect. I am insulting your thesis, and disagreeing at the same time. I don't see how you didn't see that I was disagreeing. Does saying " in any way imply agreement.' not explicitly show that I disagree? Must I treat you like a small child, and spell everything out? I thought not to insult your intelligence, but you are doing a good job of doing it on your own.

It would not be treating me like a child to express a full idea. You're welcome to do that at any time. "Tstorm, your description is wrong because..." would certainly be welcome.

 

[lil devils x]

Yeah, because tribes were closely related and didn't have outside enemies. Minor differences between tribes aren't important in the face of a common threat. What is needed is just one tribe to enforce it's dominance(in this case the Spanish royalty). The Austrian/Habsburg line subjugated almost the entirety of the European continent under the Spanish monarch Charles V. You know very little of European history to gather the entire continent under the same banner because that couldn't be further from the thruth. Charles V and Filips II were hated in the Netherlands as well for sending the Duke of Alba to suppress the Dutch revolt. You know what actually united the Low Countries? Indeed, a common enemy. Tribalism even exceeded loyalty to the Catholic church and defiance of the pope by rejecting the Habsburg monarch something the Duke tried to subjugate through the Council of Troubles. Tribalism as it's precursor to a national identity accomplished what the pope, the almighty monarch and the Reformation could not: establish sovereignty and a common purpose. That is how strong a motivator it was even contrasting to the overwhelming powers and steep internal differences at the time.



Because the Indians never had the kind of power the Habsburg dynasty had. The Castilians in Spain would have kept to their own as well with their art collections and high culture. But because of the mores of the time they had no choice but be protectors of the Crown. For them it was similarly, adapt or die. That is why conflicts increase when tribes are united because as the population grows the access to resources becomes more important. This was settled into permanence with the Treaty of Westphalia and the emergence of the modern nation state in 1648. One tribe will always prioritize it's own interests over the other. It has been that way since time immemorial. It's so ingrained in human instinct that 'us vs them' persists to this day whether between nations or within.



Europe became the center of art, culture and philosophy that shaped pretty much the entire civilized world during the Renaissance that ended the Dark Ages and broke the monopoly of religion through Enlightment that enabled, science, progress and technology. Something we are still reaping the benefits from. But it's also the continent that showed, like no other, the self-destructive forces of tribalism that can tear entire nations to pieces.

Again, no, tribes were not all closely related and didn't have outside enemies. That is nonsense too. Some tribes came across the south from Australia and Polynesia via boats, others came across the Bering Strait at very different time periods. There were numerous waves that populated the Americas, not just one group of people. " minor differences" are like saying "the culture of Sweden and the culture of the Zulu tribe have minor differences" you are just talking out of your arse there. The tribes were as different as different nations with different religions, ethnicity, history, lifestyle and culture. You are just showing your ignorance of the history of the Americas by even stating such a thing.

You mean the native Americans? There are no " Indians" in pre-columbus America, Indians are from INDIA and native american cultures are in no way related to them. That entire idea was ignorance as well. Native Americans indeed do have culture, your ignorance of that does not mean it doesn't exist, it is just you haven't bothered to find out about it. Hell, western culture didn't even have our star charts mapped until you put a new lens on Hubble to be able to see them and our calendars were extremely accurate compared to most of the world. We had science, progress and technology, you should consider though what it is used for and the goals that one wishes to obtain by using it however as well as the price your willing to pay for it. If it is harmful to the people, animals and the earth, is that actually progress? Some people see that as a price they are not willing to pay. That does not mean it doesn't exist or that the people do not have the means or ability to do so. You didn't need to have genocidal maniacs in charge in order to have technology or progress. If anything that holds people back rather than somehow makes it okay that it happened. A culture making the well being of the earth and those that dwell upon it their main priority and would rather die than harm the earth does not mean they are backwards, or ignorant, it is just they are very mindful of the impact their own actions can have and deem that more important than killing, maiming and destroying everything in their path for personal gain. I would argue that it is the culture that is mindful of their actions that is the more advanced, hell we are just now catching up to our ancestors. Modern environmentalists and trying to make everything biodegradable is FINALLY getting to where they have been for thousands of years already.

I so have to love how Europeans say "entire civilized world" like they were the only civilized people on earth at the time. LMAO! Seriously.. too funny.

 

[Asita]

Native Americans still call the mountains, rivers and valleys what we always have. It's not our fault if other's didn't bother asking what the name was before going and renaming everything. XD

Mhmm. Personal "favorite" in that regard being "Mt. McKinley", the story of which is just jaw-droppingly stupid. It got the name because a gold prospector decided to start calling it that in support of William McKinley's 1896 presidential campaign, and then got officially dubbed that by Wilson in 1917. And that pisses me off because such a crass naming system is a stain on such a beautiful mountain. (Seriously, it is gorgeous). "I think this beautiful landmark is the perfect way to immortalize my favored political candidate!" Ugh...It makes me want to scream. Give me "Denali" over that any day of the week.

 

[Buyetyen]

That is pretty cool that you could participate in that. It was funny, Back in 2006, I told my friend that the Hopi were running to Mexcio City, just like they have for thousands of years, they thought it insane, they were like "Run?!!" like with their feet?" and couldn't believe that people actually do that. LMAO. They didn't realize that people just did this all the time for a very long time. HAHA! Native Americans still call the mountains, rivers and valleys what we always have. It's not our fault if other's didn't bother asking what the name was before going and renaming everything. XD

We kept the rivers the same at least. Which I think it gives the region far more character than another generic Anglo-Saxon moniker would have.

I sometimes wonder how things would have turned out if the initial wave of germs hadn't weakened the Native American societies before the Europeans even came in contact with most of them.

Hard to speculate, though I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that the borders would look a hell of a lot different. Had it not been for smallpox, the Lakota nation might still control most of the Dakotas and Wyoming. I remember reading up on how quickly they incorporated cavalry and firearms tactics into their thinking and it occurring to me that in comparison to most of the white settlers who barely knew how to use a musket they were hilariously OP.

Yeah, because tribes were closely related and didn't have outside enemies. Minor differences between tribes aren't important in the face of a common threat. What is needed is just one tribe to enforce it's dominance(in this case the Spanish royalty). The Austrian/Habsburg line subjugated almost the entirety of the European continent under the Spanish monarch Charles V. You know very little of European history to gather the entire continent under the same banner because that couldn't be further from the thruth. Charles V and Filips II were hated in the Netherlands as well for sending the Duke of Alba to suppress the Dutch revolt. You know what actually united the Low Countries? Indeed, a common enemy. Tribalism even exceeded loyalty to the Catholic church and defiance of the pope by rejecting the Habsburg monarch something the Duke tried to subjugate through the Council of Troubles. Tribalism as it's precursor to a national identity accomplished what the pope, the almighty monarch and the Reformation could not: establish sovereignty and a common purpose. That is how strong a motivator it was even contrasted to the overwhelming powers and steep internal differences at the time.

To believe that the political makeup of pre-Modern and early Modern Europe came down exclusively to tribalism and xenophobia is a shallow reading of history at best. European politics got as complex as they were because it was a bunch of different landed elites competing with each other over increasingly smaller scraps of land. And that's just the surface. The role of the church in culture and politics cannot be overstated, even if we only take into consideration the Crusades and the Protestant Reformation.

You also seem to misunderstand what a tribe is. A tribe is a group of different bands of people who politically integrate with one another, facilitated by shared languages, cultural practices, religion, etc. The idea that everyone in a tribe is a blood relation of everyone else is ludicrous. And no, the Native American tribes didn't always get along. The Haudenoshaunnee confederacy for example was prefaced by years of inter-tribal warfare. Your definition of tribe is too small.

Because the Indians never had the kind of power the Habsburg dynasty had. The Castilians in Spain would have kept to their own as well with their art collections and high culture. But because of the mores of the time they had no choice but be protectors of the Crown. For them it was similarly, adapt or die. That is why conflicts increase when tribes are united because as the population grows the access to resources becomes more important. This was settled into permanence with the Treaty of Westphalia and the emergence of the modern nation state in 1648. One tribe will always prioritize it's own interests over the other. It has been that way since time immemorial. It's so ingrained in human instinct that 'us vs them' persists to this day whether between nations or within.

Devils already called you out on the nomenclature, so moving on... This is more evo-psych shit. You are assuming a comprehensive understanding of human nature based on a superficial reading of historical events with extraordinarily complicated underpinnings. Further, you are looking exclusively at European history, so you are only looking at one expression of the human condition. It tells you absolutely nothing about how it is expressed in places such as the Americas or the Pacific.

I would go so far as to argue that integration is actually our true inclination. Ever since the Paleolithic, bands of people have traded with each other. It's a practice older than organized warfare. For as long as there have been groups, there have been alliances. Democracy was independently developed across multiple cultures and time periods. Religions syncretize as often as they clash. I'm actually inclined toward the argument that syncretism is the most successful aspect of religion of all time.

cont....

 

[Buyetyen]

Europe became the center of art, culture and philosophy that shaped pretty much the entire civilized world during the Renaissance that ended the Dark Ages and broke the monopoly of religion through Enlightment that enabled, science, progress and technology. Something we are still reaping the benefits from. But it's also the continent that showed, like no other, the self-destructive forces of tribalism that can tear entire nations to pieces.

Ah yes, the Dark Ages. When the Islamic caliphates were having a Golden Age, rescuing books and texts of the Classical Era from oblivion, innovating science, and facilitating trade between the Mediterranean, the Levant and East Asia in what would be colloquially known as the Silk Road. The Dark Ages when the Empire of Majapahit was the undisputed master of the vibrant Indian Ocean trade circuit while Europe was losing 3 quarters of its population to bubonic plague. The Dark Ages when the Empire of Mali was the richest on earth, Islamic scholars invented algebra, the Khmer empire was founded...

I think you get the idea. Just by referring to the Medieval Era as the Dark Ages shows that the only history you've bothered to even look at is European. Europe did not invent progress. The West has simply been in the ascendant since the Enlightenment, which is only a fraction of human history. But if you actually read your history, you would also know that nothing stays in the ascendant forever.

 

[lil devils x]

Ah yes, the Dark Ages. When the Islamic caliphates were having a Golden Age, rescuing books and texts of the Classical Era from oblivion, innovating science, and facilitating trade between the Mediterranean, the Levant and East Asia in what would be colloquially known as the Silk Road. The Dark Ages when the Empire of Majapahit was the undisputed master of the vibrant Indian Ocean trade circuit while Europe was losing 3 quarters of its population to bubonic plague. The Dark Ages when the Empire of Mali was the richest on earth, Islamic scholars invented algebra, the Khmer empire was founded...

I think you get the idea. Just by referring to the Medieval Era as the Dark Ages shows that the only history you've bothered to even look at is European. Europe did not invent progress. The West has simply been in the ascendant since the Enlightenment, which is only a fraction of human history. But if you actually read your history, you would also know that nothing stays in the ascendant forever.

You also have to giggle at the fact that Europeans thought that was " the entire civilized world" On top of considering they overlooked the people they already had contact with, the Mayans, Aztec, Incas and Hopi didn't even exist in their minds because they were too ignorant at the time to even know about their existence,.. HAHA! The funny thing was the tribes were never under the delusion that the Americas was all there was because they were still trading with Polynesia in South America at the time and we kept an oral history this entire time that talked about when people came over the land bridge and from the boats.. We didn't have these massive gaps in our history because it was always passed down. What they often call " prehistoric" we have our oral history from to this day. But then again we didn't keep getting new kings who wanted to erase everything about the previous kings every time they came into power... We just didn't believe in having kings at all. Problem solved. XD

 

[deleted20220709]

DELETED

 

[Specter Von Baren]

Hard to speculate, though I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that the borders would look a hell of a lot different. Had it not been for smallpox, the Lakota nation might still control most of the Dakotas and Wyoming. I remember reading up on how quickly they incorporated cavalry and firearms tactics into their thinking and it occurring to me that in comparison to most of the white settlers who barely knew how to use a musket they were hilariously OP.

I can imagine a similar result like Japan after the Sengoku period. I'm also reminded of how Dan Carlin said in his Hardcore History series that if you took a bunch of Apache taught them how to use all the modern technology (Like rocket launchers) and let them up into the mountains that you'd probably never be able to get them out of there. Putting it very lightly, it's a damn shame how things actually turned out.

 

[deleted20220709]

DELETED

 

[lil devils x]

I'm sorry, but this is just as bad as the idea of European exceptionalism. By any sane metric the Europeans of the medieval/renaissance era had a far better grasp of the multitude of people on Earth then any American inhabitants. The Europeans at the time knew of people on three continents comprising almost two thirds of the total landmass of Earth. The expressed reason for sailing due West from Spain was to find a quicker way to China, to facilitate trade with the Far East without having to go through the lengthy, prolonged and expensive route of the Silk Road (and to bypass those pesky Ottoman tolls in the Levant). The Europeans might not have anticipated the massive landmass that was the Americas between them and Asia, but it was a far lesser revelation to them than the appearance of Europeans was to Americans. One should also be careful to homogenize "Americans" too much, because there was a vast difference between the different Americans of North America, Central America and South America and all of them had even further subdivisions. It is uncertain if the Inkas, for example, knew of the North American Great Plains Tribes and vice versa, but you can rest assured that the Portuguese most certainly knew of the Ottomans and even the Indians and the Chinese. Without making a judgement call on it, Europeans on average probably knew more about foreign people then Americans did for pretty much most of recorded history. Considering the difference in geographical location that's to be expected and is not a statement about superiority one way or the other.

Also, let me just point out that it is impossible to have an oral history that extends 13,000 years back. Heck, reliable oral history rarely extends more then a generation or two back, if that. A story told enough times will eventually morph and become distorted. The Norse had a strong oral tradition, but whatever historical truths one might find in the Eddas is so obscured by generations of oral tradition embellishing, changing and omitting that it is impossible to tell what it is. Most of Europe had a strong, shared oral tradition for several centuries, but today those shared stories are very, very different depending on which country you visit. I really, really doubt that North Americans are somehow superior in possessing perfect oral recollection or that your oral recollection is not as strongly influenced by mythology, superstition and agenda setting as everyone else's. If anything, lacking recorded history is a great drawback because it means that apart from whatever the agenda setters deemed important (and thus shared as oral history) everything else is lost to time. You can never do the Babylonian thing and find old warehouse records that not only talks of the things in store but the names of the people managing the warehouse or the Dead Sea scrolls thing were you suddenly discover tons of forgotten religious scripture. A culture with only oral history is lesser for it because what's forgotten is forever gone, it can never be rediscovered and shared with later generations.

It really is not the same. It wasn't a matter of ' Knowing how many people were on earth". It was a matter of knowing where you came from. Yes, we actually DO have an oral history, kept among MULTIPLE tribes, that goes back longer than you seem to realize. The " laws" for historians do not allow them to change the story or embellish, and only a very few even qualify to become a historian due to the challenges of being able to do so. They kept the major events in our history among the tribes historians in multiple tribes. It is not just North American tribes, but also central and south american tribes that have similar rules and means to keep their oral histories and do not see this as something they allowed to embellish on as you suggest the Norse did. It is seen as an extremely grave offense to embellish or change the oral history in any way and that is a surefire way to lose your job as historian quick if you mess up. Hopi and Mayans are related and have a shared origin history where we came to the Americas on ships made of reeds AFTER a catastrophe on our previous land that forced the people to leave and had landed in South America. We actively traded and intermarried with both North american and central american tribes into present day, as our tribes are still visiting one another even now. Even when the tribes were forced apart for hundreds of years due to the European invasion, when our historians compared histories with the Mayans, they still matched up exactly. Our tribes oral histories date back farther than when the new tribes came across the Bering strait, Hell we even named some of the tribes when they came across... Their oral history says the same thing, except they called us " ancient ones" instead.

Who is "homogenizing" Native Americans? I in fact I distinctly said above that we are all very different rather than being the same groups. We come from different ethnicity, religions, backgrounds and histories and have entirely different lifestyles. First of all, you should know we traded with Incas in North America, and YES it is known. It is not something that is actually " uncertain" as you suggest. The ridiculous thing is that it is taking scientists forever to even catch up when they could have started researching the right areas all along if they had just paid attention to what the tribes were telling them in the first place instead of dismissing it as " myth".

The problem started when the Christians assumed any history or information that was not related to Christ was blasphemy and dismissed much of what they were being told as " myth" and related it to the pagan religions they were already aware of rather than understanding the teaching method of different cultures about very real things in our universe. The way we were taught about things like the sun, stars, moon, planets, nebula ect was very different than they were capable of understanding and instead they thought those were like their pagan gods or some nonsense when they were really just about the actual sun, moon, stars ect.. It is just they always explained it in an entertaining way so they could remember it and keep the kids interested in their studies so it wasn't boring. These are the same stories and teachings that were learned in the great city to the south ( where you found the Mayan pyramids) by our ancestors, we are still telling these in this day, and in the same way. When we compare them to our Mayan relatives in the south, they tell us the same stories the same way.They were never lost. People seem to think the Mayans are dead or something. Mayans seem pretty annoyed with that as well. LOL

I just gotta love it when someone who only knows what some other European wrote about Native Americans tries to tell Native Americans that they know more about us and our own history than we do. XD

 

[lil devils x]

Let's be honest here: some Native Americans, particularly in Central America, created one of the most bloodthirsty religions and societies the world has ever seen and then waged something akin to perpetual war on their neighbors to secure slaves for labor and sacrifice. The Aztecs and their neighbors were incredibly warlike even by the standards of Europeans at the time (and that's saying something). Even in North America there was a ton of armed conflict between tribes even prior to the Europeans arriving. It is beyond doubt that European colonization destabilized both American continents and caused further bloodshed, often instigated by Europeans, but we should not perpetuate some rose-tinted myth about peace loving Native Americans who only learned violence when the bad White Man came with sword and musket. In fact, it is worth remembering that the first European settlements both in the Caribbean and North America were often attacked (and more then occasionally wiped out) by Native Americans, specifically because those settlements could not defend themselves and thus were easy targets. Some tribes were more or less peaceful, but violent conflict is a part of the human condition and using force to achieve goals is among the universal human traits.

I disagree with this. We actively traded and intermarried with the Aztecs and they were not some bloodthirsty warmongers as you suggest. I see making them out to be THAT as the embellishment. Acting like their captives were treated any different than your criminals and that their execution of criminals were any more inhumane than those in Europe is what is ridiculous. Europe was just plain sick in the way they tortured people.

Oh and no one ever attempted to say that" Natives only learned bad when Europeans came over" , so please do not assume such. There were complex relations between many of the tribes. You do realize that the European settlements were attacked only AFTER Native Americans were already kidnapped, raped, abused, tortured and killed right? Native Americans across North Central and south america all received news to what was happening to our trading partners in the islands. As word spread, many tribes became alarmed, and rightfully so, some had to go see for themselves what was going on and witnessed horrors. The same horrors that Bartolome de las Casas spoke of. It isn't like all the tribes here didn't hear the same thing he was complaining about. Our trade routes spanned the entirely of North, Central, south America, Polynesia and the Caribbean. Don't you think we would notice this happening? Did you just expect everyone to sit there and let it happen to their families as well? Of course not, some tribes made up their mind after seeing the genocide that wa s being carried out and decided that they were going to put a stop to it every time a ship landed and who could blame them?

Europeans started kidnapping, raping, abusing and killing people from the second they stepped foot here, Read Columbus's own words. Read what the Spaniards said they did to the people.Complaining that someone did it back to them is only treating them as they asked to be treated when they came here. I am sure you would be so hospitable after watching men rip nursing infants from their mothers and feed them to dogs, pour boiling soap into peoples mouths and wager on who could cut a person in half with their sword. Yea, that is going to give them confidence to offer you a warm welcome. News of what was happenening spread across the continents here like wildfire and people rightfully were afraid.

 

[Trunkage]

I disagree with this. We actively traded and intermarried with the Aztecs and they were not some bloodthirsty warmongers as you suggest. I see making them out to be THAT as the embellishment. Acting like their captives were treated any different than your criminals and that their execution of criminals were any more inhumane than those in Europe is what is ridiculous. Europe was just plain sick in the way they tortured people.

Oh and no one ever attempted to say that" Natives only learned bad when Europeans came over" , so please do not assume such. There were complex relations between many of the tribes. You do realize that the European settlements were attacked only AFTER Native Americans were already kidnapped, raped, abused, tortured and killed right? Native Americans across North Central and south america all received news to what was happening to our trading partners in the islands. As word spread, many tribes became alarmed, and rightfully so, some had to go see for themselves what was going on and witnessed horrors. The same horrors that Bartolome de las Casas spoke of. It isn't like all the tribes here didn't hear the same thing he was complaining about. Our trade routes spanned the entirely of North, Central, south America, Polynesia and the Caribbean. Don't you think we would notice this happening? Did you just expect everyone to sit there and let it happen to their families as well? Of course not, some tribes made up their mind after seeing the genocide that wa s being carried out and decided that they were going to put a stop to it every time a ship landed and who could blame them?

Europeans started kidnapping, raping, abusing and killing people from the second they stepped foot here, Read Columbus's own words. Read what the Spaniards said they did to the people.Complaining that someone did it back to them is only treating them as they asked to be treated when they came here. I am sure you would be so hospitable after watching men rip nursing infants from their mothers and feed them to dogs, pour boiling soap into peoples mouths and wager on who could cut a person in half with their sword. Yea, that is going to give them confidence to offer you a warm welcome. News of what was happenening spread across the continents here like wildfire and people rightfully were afraid.

I've always liked how the guys who made up the Inquisition thought tbat everyone else were the barbaric one. It made so much sense

 

[tippy2k2]

This thread doesn't seem to have been about the payroll tax cut for pages but maybe someone can answer this...

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/31/the-payroll-tax-holiday-takes-effect-sept-1-what-it-means-for-your-pay.html

Looking into it (I could use some extra cash right about now so I wanted to see how this thing would help me), everything I've seen about the payroll tax is that it is a deferral, NOT a cut. Basically if you take advantage of the payroll tax deferral, you'll get a bigger paycheck for the remainder of the year but then you'll essentially be paying that back starting at the beginning of next year.

So how is Social Security dying because of this? Is that letter referring to a different piece of legislation and I'm mixing things up?

 

[lil devils x]

I've always liked how the guys who made up the Inquisition thought tbat everyone else were the barbaric one. It made so much sense

Oh and you gotta love how Columbus and his henchmen openly admitted what they did to the people and then we still have people turn around and say " but those Indians attacked us for no reason" Did they really miss the part about what the Spanish actually did before they got here and how the tribes told each other about it? Look at the trade routes map above and as you can see, this happening to some of our most important trading partners isn't going to go unnoticed here. The entire idea that the tribes were all isolated was just an ignorant fiction with no basis in reality. People saw what happened and they were rightly angry and afraid.

 

[stroopwafel]

Ah yes, the Dark Ages. When the Islamic caliphates were having a Golden Age, rescuing books and texts of the Classical Era from oblivion, innovating science, and facilitating trade between the Mediterranean, the Levant and East Asia in what would be colloquially known as the Silk Road. The Dark Ages when the Empire of Majapahit was the undisputed master of the vibrant Indian Ocean trade circuit while Europe was losing 3 quarters of its population to bubonic plague. The Dark Ages when the Empire of Mali was the richest on earth, Islamic scholars invented algebra, the Khmer empire was founded...

Yeah, that short interlude that is always referred to to make up for the next 600 years that Islam is suffocating those countries with their medieval dogmas taking people's freedoms on penalty of chopping off hands, hanging people on cranes and stoning them to death for the offense of being gay or women having an extramarital affair. The Islamic caliphates were certainly heaven as well. Saladin and his armies were certainly pure and noble compared to the brute Richard Lionheart.

I think you get the idea. Just by referring to the Medieval Era as the Dark Ages shows that the only history you've bothered to even look at is European. Europe did not invent progress. The West has simply been in the ascendant since the Enlightenment, which is only a fraction of human history. But if you actually read your history, you would also know that nothing stays in the ascendant forever.

Yeah, I'm sure it's only a matter of time before Europeans are waiting at the immigration line hoping to get into Saudi Arabia or Mali. L O L!

 

[lil devils x]

This thread doesn't seem to have been about the payroll tax cut for pages but maybe someone can answer this...

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/31/the-payroll-tax-holiday-takes-effect-sept-1-what-it-means-for-your-pay.html

Looking into it, everything I've seen about the payroll tax is that it is a deferral, NOT a cut. Basically if you take advantage of the payroll tax deferral, you'll get a bigger paycheck for the remainder of the year but then you'll essentially be paying that back starting at the beginning of next year.

So how is Social Security dying because of this? Is that letter referring to a different piece of legislation and I'm mixing things up?

Trump had to settle for this, but this is still bad because people are not going to be able to pay that back at the beginning of the year either. Trump has repeatedly been pushing for payroll cuts, not just this deferral and receiving backlash. Trump wants to do permanent cuts, but luckily no one has let him do so thus far. If we implement Trumps plans however, Social security will go bankrupt quickly.
What they really needed was a relief package that gave them money that they didn't have to pay back and not just to those who are employed, but to everyone as everyone has been taking a hit right now. Even the employed have been hit by higher costs fro basic necessities just trying to find food and toilet paper.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

Hopi and Mayans are related and have a shared origin history where we came to the Americas on ships made of reeds AFTER a catastrophe on our previous land that forced the people to leave and had landed in South America.

I'm curious about this. What was your previous land and what was the catastrophe?