Where certain people portray historical events a certain way to make certain groups look like poor defenseless, primitive, ignorant lambs in order to better guilt people in the modern day.

What's a historical victim narrative?

I mean take that up with the historians that have been making that distinction for decades upon decades.

It doesn't make a difference in that semantic argument, but it does clearly demonstrate a deliberate, disingenuous downplaying of the organisation, stratification and relative development of native societies when it's convenient to pretend that they had no states of their own.

I just find it interesting how far individual people are willing to go to add fuel to the fires of their historical victim narratives.

A select few societies in the Mesoamericas classified as states but they were incredibly flimsy and lacked regional unity which made them easy to overthrow by a coalition of unified Spaniards and their own subjects.

They were states at one point, but there wasn't much left of them by the time the conquistadors arrived.

Nevertheless I don't understand what difference it makes on the distinction between immigration and colonization.

So you would also concede that the mesoamerican societies with cities and writing were states?

No. They developed out of tribes and ceased to be when those started up and turned into city-states.

That's pretty condescending.

Just out of curiosity, would you call the civilisations in mesopotamia who developed writing to properly record their harvests so that their ruling class could properly administrate the kingdoms and empires to spring up in their fertile valley home "pre-state" too?

[quote=leon1122 post_id=12695 time=1522044496 user_id=70]
And if you think illegal immigration isn't backed by the Mexican state, you're being incredibly gullible. The Mexican government has repeatedly denounced Trump's proposed immigration policies, which is in essence encouraging Mexican citizens to violate American law.
[/quote]

I laughed to myself about this this morning but was too tired to address it with words because I'm back in school after Spring Break and haven't woken up before 10 am in over a week.

That's such a bizarre leap from "denouncing a policy" to "state-backed migration."

State officials in Mexico have made it very clear they would prefer Mexicans stay in Mexico. I'm sure, however, you mean comments on the wall. But at that point you also have to consider that a wall wouldn't just be a plug on migration, it would far more thoroughly plug commerce. I'm sure that sounds appealing to you or you'll say something claiming that commerce is based in migration, but you should also consider how many Mexicans have a livelihood in Mexico that depends on either working for American businesses or selling things to American businesses or selling (legal) goods across the border.

Considering that, it seems like it should be obvious they're going to denounce that.

In my mind that's pretty different from sending people to an occupied country with a powerful military and trying to colonize it (which would be the parallel to what I was talking about except in a modern context).

[quote=leon1122 post_id=12774 time=1522097204 user_id=70]
Tribes are just states under a different name. They have a different governing structure than western states and hold different values, but they're states nonetheless.
[/quote]

No. Tribes are the pre-state. Every state is preceded by the presence of tribes, tribes aren't states. It's also not strictly non-Western.

[quote=TrPrado post_id=12714 time=1522073137 user_id=65]
Can’t really be state-backed if you don’t have a state, eh?
[/quote]

Tribes are just states under a different name. They have a different governing structure than western states and hold different values, but they're states nonetheless.

[quote=Octavious post_id=12728 time=1522086013 user_id=71]
I always thought it was a type of vegetable pie...

Would you say that any American news organisation was particularly relevant in the UK, Croak? They all seem to be varying degrees of awful.
[/quote]
The truth is that for most people in the United States who are capable of thinking about political issues without getting dragged into the noisy, distracting bullshit of establishment press, American news organizations aren't relevant to us, either.
It's just much more comforting to the psyche of people who need life to be simple to have simple explanations to complex situations. The American news media is very good at generating these explanations.

I dunno. I've at least heard of CNN and MSNBC but I don't think I could name any presenters from them, either.

I always thought it was a type of vegetable pie...

Would you say that any American news organisation was particularly relevant in the UK, Croak? They all seem to be varying degrees of awful.

I see. Fox News isn't very relevant here in Britain.

[quote=CroakandDagger post_id=12706 time=1522066712 user_id=194]
Who is Sean Hannity?
[/quote]
A popular neoconservative commentator on the Fox News Network, America's most right-wing major news organization. Like most right-wing commentators, he is an object of ridicule to the left.
He doesn't matter for anything we were discussing, but for +NaN reasons these guys like to distract from the issues and bring up irrelevant trifles, hence why his name is floating around in here.

[quote=leon1122 post_id=12695 time=1522044496 user_id=70]
[quote=TrPrado post_id=12517 time=1522001961 user_id=65]
Yeah, a lot of highly important differentiating details really conveniently slip out when anti-immigration folks start using European settlement as an argument against immigration.

For example the part where an established, state-backed warrior class created strongholds in a region that didn’t have any unifying state and had never had the opportunity to be party to the few international agreements that existed at the time.

As opposed to modern immigrants quite simply looking for a place to live that isn’t awful, without the same sort of state-backing that existed during the settlement period.
[/quote]

Lmao. The natives didn't have a state-backed warrior class?
[/quote]

Can’t really be state-backed if you don’t have a state, eh?

[quote=CroakandDagger post_id=12706 time=1522066712 user_id=194]
Who is Sean Hannity?
[/quote]


I do not buy that someone can be as conservative as you and not know who Sean Hannity is.

Who is Sean Hannity?

[quote=bo_sox48 post_id=12694 time=1522039412 user_id=56]
[quote="President Eden" post_id=12675 time=1522022852 user_id=115]
[quote=bo_sox48 post_id=12508 time=1521999266 user_id=56]


If you think this problem is exclusive to the left, you're part of the problem. Spit up whatever Hannity is gagging you with.
[/quote]
Prime example. Bringing up Sean Hannity as though he has anything to do with the discussion makes no sense if you’re trying to have a real conversation, but it’s great +NaN fodder. I’m surprised you haven’t gotten one at the time of this post.

It’s not exclusive to the left, but it’s been my experience that this pattern is much more apparent in the left than in the right. Take that for whatever you value it at.
[/quote]

See, that's the thing, PE. You used to be conservative - always have been - but willing to compromise and come toward the center if it meant developing a real solution that could actually work despite not getting everything you wanted. Now, you are more than ready to support the conversational rhetoric that the alt right spews on the regular and that sense, knowing that you have to compromise in order to get where you're going, is just gone. You've gone from someone I disagree with but can work with to someone who is just off the deep end and that's been the case since this whole Trump movement started a couple of years ago when you were only barely active on webDip at best. Then you come in here and act as if you're the same guy you used to be who would discuss the merits of ideas without actually wanting to do so. Hell, I would say that you're doing exactly what you just said not to do - shooting for +1s by acting like you're the type that would never shoot for +1s. You're better than those sad liberals, obviously.

The reason that I bring up Sean Hannity is because that's what his sorry ass does. Have you noticed or do you just enjoy him based on his flair and charisma? It certainly doesn't have much to do with his intelligence, but if you enjoy him, you obviously haven't considered it. He has plenty do with the conversation because you are asking people such as myself on the left that regularly entertain center, right, and even far-right solutions to problems in congruence with our own ideas on the left to "have a real conversation," which we're doing and have been doing, and yet telling us time and time again that we aren't worth your wasted breath. Here you are, though, wasting your breath, telling us to have a real conversation and stop pushing for +1s, all the while failing to have a real conversation and pushing for +1s. It's called hypocrisy and of all the shortcomings I associated with you in the good ol days of webDip, that certainly wasn't one of them. If you're over it, then let's have a real conversation.

I don't know what evidence you have suggesting that parroting the casual rhetoric in an attempt to preach to the choir is more prevalent on the left than the right, but I would like to see it. As a matter of fact, I too have noticed for the past couple of years that most online forums tend to be left-sided people spewing the same old rhetoric, whether right or wrong, and appealing to their own kind, leaving conservative minds in the dust. It's a problem that people like you and I, people that aren't accepted in the regular circles on either side, care much more about than the mainstream. That said, I also happen to have a massive, inbred, redneck family that doesn't shut up on Facebook, so I know for a fact that at least a hundred or so right wingers throughout the Midwest repeat exactly what they hear on their "news" station. Beyond that, I travel all over the country as both a driver and a storm chaser and I have seen enough bumper stickers calling Obama all sorts of asinine things that took some serious trailer trash to even think of let alone actually believe. These anecdotes aren't grounds for any scientific study, but they're enough to give me an informed belief that the right - not just the total Nazis but plenty of the unsuspecting, normal people that just happen to be off their rocker - is absolutely fucking insane and cares a lot more about showing those liberals who's boss than actually doing a thing about what's right and what's wrong.
[/quote]
My first post in this thread was literally "I don't like that Trump signed this bill but I understand not everything I like is going to happen," what part of that doesn't fit your first sentence??

My views have changed, but I will still discuss things with people from differing viewpoints if I think they're willing to listen and not playing stupid games. What you may not have noticed since then is that a lot more of the left has resorted to nothing [i]but[/i] playing stupid games. My reaction to this shift has been to put a more stringent standard on how, when and why I engage with people on the left, because if I didn't, I would waste more time than I already do.
You're doing it even in your posts by bringing up Sean Hannity as though I watch his shows regularly or have anything to do with him. Sorry to have to say it bud but you are being the exact hypocrite you are decrying.

I have no idea what you want me to be doing differently. Croak wondered aloud why leftists like to play cute word games around the word "immigrants" in reference to the colonization of the Americas. I answered why I think leftists do this. It serves no purpose to the conversation Croak and I are having to add in "but, you know, some right-wingers do this too," because right-wingers playing stupid word games have nothing relevant to do with leftists playing stupid word games in this circumstance. It's totally irrelevant and I have no reason to acknowledge it, but since you pointed it out I went ahead and acknowledged it anyway (despite it being irrelevant), and I still get this burdensome wall of text? What's your goal here?


edit: s/o to brainbomb for the sorely-needed +NaN on bo's first response, maybe that will satisfy this silly tangent. Real MVP.