you kept them as colonies for 100-s of years...British Empire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ...it is absurd to claim that 100s of years of, lets call it by its real name: exploitation , had no negative effect on their development...

pure western hand wash...the empire got rich and "progressive" and the colonies did not...now the british do not like the smell of the shit they shat...




keep on being xenophobic then...nobody asked them what they think when you invaded their countries for 100-s of years...I am just putting in to perspective the almighty law of action and reaction...causality if you will...you had complete rule in their countries for 100-s of years and you left them poor...now pay the price :2 cents:


well it was like this, american backed separatists came to my house recruit me to fight the minority...this offer came to me after a peace deal had been signed an all sides...this is the first time I became a refugee...over 2.000.000 people fled to serbia, because there was no war in serbia...I was cleansed...

you are american, so your brain can develop only so far...you will not understand what I wrote because of your natural disability: being american :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

I honestly don't feel a lot of pity for western nations complaining about immigration. Because after all it's a question of "What goes around comes around". Having said that the sooner people stop paying attention to governments and learn to do business only on the very local level and in trade not currency.. the better off the wold will be.

But until then the circle jerk daisy chain fisting will never end.

Are you talking about ethnic cleaning your grandfathers have committed against native Americans, clown?

http://s2.hubimg.com/u/5256691_f520.jpg

http://endgenocide.org/wp-content/up...llustrated.jpg

http://worldwithoutgenocide.org/wp-c...d-for-sale.jpg

http://clearingthefogradio.org/wp-co...ndians-Day.jpg

http://www.whale.to/c/nativeamericangenocide87x.jpg

*facepalm*

i wonder how they are doing

no-one's posted muh Barbara Spectre yet??

In my travels I have noticed that those opposed to Manifest Destiny are often frustrated with their inability to manifest their own destiny.

please define manifest destiny in this context. It's seem be an american ideology related to the american expension to the west.

I see you sobered up a bit shitstain? Tell us about millions of your own people killed in 1930's. We can compare them numbers fucktard.

hi
https://gfy.com/avatars/tclgirls?dateline=1423642102




I'd rescue her from the trailer park.

Nope clown, we can't. A whole your country was build by slaves, and segregation is still there. You're hypocritical piece of shit.

http://floridafringetourism.com/wp-c...rateflag-0.jpg

Her twat reminds me of a Squirrel's testicles.

those are not native americans you dumbfuck. they migrated here just like everyone else. not to mention 99% of them died BEFORE the USA was created.

dumbfuck.

Is this what they teach little easter european shitstains to justify why their own countries are fucked up and stay piss poor? :1orglaugh No wonder you're a pathetic envious little bitch :1orglaugh

Ask our little drunk russian cunt about this Serfdom in Russia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On that basis there is no natives at all, but that term doesn't quite work that way. :)

About the subject in general; if USA gets attacked, 99 % of the folks killed; Freedonia established (by the attackers) and most of the rest USA folks exterminated, the Freedonia and Freedonian folks have nothing to do with what just happened? :)

And not that many (99 %) indians got killed before the establishment of USA.

The stupid florida junkie don't understand that Serfdom is not slavery (it's a typical feudalism). You can kill a slave, but you can't kill a serf. Also it has nothing to do with racism when white people enslave black people (slavery) and hunt the red-skinned ones (genocide).

http://esq.h-cdn.co/assets/cm/15/07/...ns1-gtp0as.png

Serfdom is semi-slavery. We call it "maaorjuus"; "orjuus" being slavery. Direct translation is land slavery (as you were "tied" to land plot).

And the thing why serfdom comes up relating to Russia, is that in Russia serfdom lasted so much longer than in the rest of the Europe.


"In 1649 up to three-quarters of Muscovy's peasants, or 13 to 14 million people, were serfs whose material lives were barely distinguishable from slaves. Perhaps another 1.5 million were formally enslaved, with Russian slaves serving Russian masters.[20]

Russia's 23+ million privately held serfs were freed from their lords by an edict of Alexander II in 1861. The owners were compensated through taxes on the freed serfs. State-owned serfs were emancipated in 1866."

Serfdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

that's exactly how the term works.

freedonia has nothing to do with jack shit.

and OK by most legitimate studies, between 96% & 99% of the indians were killed off, due to plague primarily, prior to the USA becoming a nation. many of the remaining % killed each other off.

"Native" is colonialism related; meaning the folks those were there before the colonialists.

OK, Freedonia has nothing to do with nothing. Also Freedonia values freedom; although not the freedom of the "original" US folks; they are killed or stuffed into big concentration camps (reservates). Freedonia also has other non-free folks, like slaves. But it is a fucking free country, yeah! And has fancy slogan and flag too, just like Nazi-Germany or Soviet-Union had. Oh yeah. Also some Freedonians view others as sub-humans living in some shitholes; those should be bombed or something like that (or gassed maybe).

Was it too rough? I didn't really even try; I just took some available real elements. Don't blame me.

i don't blame you for your lack of knowledge. and again, that's not at all what native means.

looks like I called this one right :1orglaugh

Though there is so much of these "single events" in human history, that if you leave those out when defining that "human essence"; it really isn't human anymore.

So, what the native means? That you evolved from the dirt of your birthplace?

If not referring to language; word "native" origins to the times of colonization and it meant the folks who were there before colonists.

because one single event breeds the next by people not being able to let it go as a single event. Much like a whining female creating a new argument every time she drags up the last one, and each time being able to call upon another, in a self-perpetuating ball of gigantic shit.

you did this!

yeah but you did that!

yeah but only because you did this other thing!

yeah but only because you did that other thing!

blah fucking blah....

gfy isn't the place to learn. or teach. go ask a sub-saharan african to explain native to you.

This sounds like the Bible version about sin. We are sinners because that Eve chick ate that apple.

Might apply sometimes, but is not that great universal explanation.

Not place to learn?

So, was life born in sub-Saharan Africa? I don't think there was even Africa at that time. Not even Pangea at that time.

I won my bet that you'd start chatting irrelevant shit within 5 replies :thumbsup

you might speak english, but you don't understand it :2 cents:

It was totally relevant; we do sin because of that single event that started all the sin. Totally comparable to your explanation aka domino effect.

who give a shit how many name changes there's been. back to my point, indians were not native to North America. 96+% of them were wiped out before the USA was born, and that was due to plague, + 350 million Americans are not direct descendants of the settlers

So what is your definition for native? There is no such thing as native, you defy the word? At least that seems to be your point. Even the American continent itself is not native?

About the Africa; it is not just about name changes; the whole landmass as such didn't exist then.

And the USA didn't spring up from nothing. Humans formed it; humans those were already there, as the actual landmass that forms USA. Your explanation is something like annexing Crimea and naming it Grimean. What? Part of Ukraine? We don't know anything about it, this is Grimean. We just popped up.

one is a fairy story, the other is fact = totally irrelevant. you're an intelligent guy, but by fuck do you post like a cunt most of the time. Don't expect any replies from me, I gotta do what I'd do with a babbling 7 year old or a pissy woman, and skip right over whatever the fuck it is you're going to verbally mangle next.

can you not understand that in the context you used it, native implies ownership? the indians in no fucking way whatsofuckingever owned any of the Americas. In fact, they fucking burned most of the Americas down during the time they were here.

2. it's even more of a distortion of the actual history to perpetuate the bullshit that the United States wiped out the indians when in fact the USA wasn't born yet combined with the reality that plague wiped out the indians.

I didn't imply any ownership. And if we discuss about that, why the indians wouldn't have had any ownership, but you do now? How come some people have and others don't? You are more free than the indians?

I don't get the burning America down. What the fuck is that supposed to mean?

I haven't said that USA wiped out indians (as a % from total death toll), but USA exploited indians, killed much them and took most of their lifehood, and restricted their freedom to move. And the folks who established the USA didn't sprung up at the same time as USA was established. They had already done what they had done; whatever it is. There is continuum, you know.

That "totally irrelevant" part happens to be very important part of western heritage, and that is why I used it as example.

again, complete absolute bullshit.

re: burning. the indians burned >90% of all the forestry on the Americas. in fact, research shows the fires they created caused a mini-ice age. so let's not kid ourselves by claiming the indians gave 1 single shit about the Americas.

I know that indians made some grass fires to have more buffalos around, and things like that, but you have some source for that forest thing? Excluding the great plains there was anyways much forests. Also, forest fires don't usually kill the forests to begin with.

And how this differs from USA folks and the settlers before them plowing the whole shit? At least there was some grasslands before them.


Native American use of fire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Also, not that my country wouldn't have history of burning forest, but it doesn't exactly mean burning the whole shit down, due to some "evil purposes".

Slash-and-burn - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia