Where's Schock? Giving FOXNews a history lesson on the Peoria.com Forums - Page 2

I'm not suggesting we go to war; but in the most basic sense considering our history as a species.. Yes.

Are you suggesting this isn't accurate? History paints this picture well.

One good example is the Spanish conquest of the Inca Empire. The word "Native" is used politically to distort facts and imply something was "taken" from an innocent people.. which isn't the case those people took it from the people before, etc, etc.. This is how it works.

I think that we, as a society, have evolved... Nations have more respect for indigenous cultures today, than we, as a society, had three hundred years ago.

I would say 3 hundred years ago, it was socially acceptable to conquer or eliminate other cultures in the name of god or the queen.

Today, we realize that type of imperialism is not ethical. That superiority is subjective... just because your culture has more "guns, germs and steel" doesn't mean its superior.

That is more of a philosophical question on rather we have "evolved" past those tendencies. In my opinion the jury is still out on that.

My point was simply to illustrate that they weren't "Native" and I'd go as far to say far more blood was spilled leading up to the arrival of the Europeans than following.

People lived on this continent, evolved with the flora and fauna on this continent for thousands of years and developed a culture totally different from that which they migrated.

I was just wondering what length of time someone needs to reside somewhere before they can be considered native.

And who did they kill and conquer, and those people before them, and before them, before they got where they were.. Who is really native in a situation like that?

As for an arbitrary limit to the amount of years; I won't even speculate. Interesting discussion though.