Kennewick Man and his people didn't suffer, they were already dead, had been for a long time. And for all we know, even his and his might not have been indigenous. Perhaps they stole the land from someone else before your ancestors stole from them and we stole it from them.
I have a feeling you'd not be happy renaming it "Kennewick Man Day" - how about "Previous Owners Day" That'd cover everyone who owned it before the last group of land thieves took possession.
Marx is talking about the capitalist system, here is the rest of the that quote "But can there be anything more puerile more short-sighted, than the views of those economists who believe in all earnest that this means nothing but adapting society to the acquisitive propensities of capitalists both landlords and money lords."
And the part about 'revolutionary holocaust' isn't from Marx, it's something that has been added by idiots like you
totally irrelevant and moot refutation 2/10 you are not a marxist. Marx's analysis is scientific - the workers will take the means of production not because it is moral, or they have rights, it is because they are eventually going to be stronger and take it all by force, and the same applies to everything in history in an evolutionary basis working up to that point AKA might is right. Class and race are one and the same in this, and at that time white proletarians were the outcome of that evolution beating all others, his message really was addressed only to white workers.
Same same analysis goes for all other socialists of the pre-modern era; war of the worlds is just one example of racial struggle that comes to mind - inspired by our elimination of the tazmanians. Jack London's the Iron Heel on which the turner Diaries was based is also a good example.
If you were a student of marx, you would know that he supported colonization where more advanced civilizations took over others. As you are not a student, how do you know it is a false citation, You all vehimently deny it I will ask you why marxists.org ommits the souce of that quotation.
It's not irrelevant, he's talking about capitalism you moron. Class and race are two different things, class is based on the economic conditions that a person live in, race is a pseudoscientific concept based on the level of melanin The Communist Manifesto says Workers of the World Unite, not Europeans unite, World, that is all working people, so how it works.
Marx didn't support colonization, he said that capitalism would carried out imperialists actions because it can make money out of it, it is not carried out for racial reason, Britain's oldest acts of imperialism were carried out against the Irish. Main land Europe's first actions of impeiralism was against the Slavic peoples.
I don't have to listen to the words of someone whose ideology was crushed in the ruins of Berlin 70 years ago.
Socialism is inconcievable as anything other than the eventual outcome of a capitalistic process; ever increasing methods of production, and the crushing of economic units into single corporate bodies - which are the bodies of dead businesses taken over by the power of capital. Socialism is progress, it abolishes private property! so it is not a reversion to smallholdings, but puts the total means of production into the hands of workers. It isn't complicated, it is darwinism and an end process.
"Without violence nothing is ever accomplished in history."
Likewise Colonialsm was the outcome of this capitalistic process and the process at that of the most advanced groups. Lenin's 'Imperialism' to which you allude makes no distinction; capitalism is imperialism, imperialism is capitalism - and Socialism is the end product of capitalism.
He said workers of the world unite, but was referring to only those workers who were poised to take the means of production.
Marx and Engels didn't support colonialism and exactly the theory proposed here? think again
"In America we have witnessed the conquest of Mexico and have rejoiced at it. It is to the interest of its own development that Mexico will be placed under the tutelage of the United States."
I reserched a few threads on revleft sites and they don't seem to contest this assertion that Marx supported colonialism.
"Is it a misfortune that magnificent California was seized from the lazy Mexicans who did not know what to do with it?"
There is no way we will ever agree because we fundamentally will never agree on anything and I will not harass you on this topic any more. I just don't think you are consistant or scientifically minded - point made for what it is worth.
Marx is saying the greed of the capitalist class will be their undoing, they become more brutal towards workers across the world. you get the picture.
He still said workers of the world.
The term Mexican in the 19th century only mean members of the ruling class in Mexico, it was only used as term for the general population much later. He called them lazy because they lived off taxes from campesinos
I'm not consistant or scientifically minded? this is coming from a fascist who doesn't know the first thing about science.
Still doesn't justify the celebration of these, terrible events.
There is a high difference between nations who call themself communistic and directly the politics of communism, there has been only socialism nations combined with authority that have great power over the people.
Point being is that people would do well to keep that in mind before acting like America is a devil among a group of angels.
And had America not been discovered by Europe, Indians would've remained trapped in a day to day struggle for survival for a lot longer than they were. I don't deny they were ill-treated, but I'm also rational enough to acknowledge the benefits Europe brought over with them.
And the burden is on communism to prove itself a moral philosophy (though I doubt it will ever do so), and so far, its record has been poor. And communism is socialism taken to extremes.
This is a logical fallacy, you cannot state that you know the future. America brought diseases, stole everything they had and took them as slaves. Should we invade the parts of Africa that have poor people because they are struggling there?
Stating that communism is socialism taken to extremes is like stating that libertaranism is capitalism taken to extremes. Socialism is built on the basis of supporting the society but also recieving assistance, while communism is built on the basis that we do not have the requirement for assistance because society is built in such a way that help is a "natural" part of it.
"This is a logical fallacy, you cannot state that you know the future. America brought diseases, stole everything they had and took them as slaves. Should we invade the parts of Africa that have poor people because they are struggling there?"
It wasn't "Americans" who came to America in the beginning, chum, it was Europeans; it would do you very well to remember that little fact. And diseases couldn't be helped (it was hardly Europe's fault that Indians had never experienced said diseases before), and the last two are open to debate. And no, I'm of the opinion that Africa should be left entirely alone; it's not worth a single dime or life for us to help that country (and when we do, we get no thanks for it and plenty of blame). And it can be logically said that if Europe (where the advances in philosophy and knowledge that led to advances in medicine and technology originated) had never discovered America, the indians would've remained in their then present lifestyle.
"Stating that communism is socialism taken to extremes is like stating that libertaranism is capitalism taken to extremes. Socialism is built on the basis of supporting the society but also recieving assistance, while communism is built on the basis that we do not have the requirement for assistance because society is built in such a way that help is a "natural" part of it."
Communism and socialism both hold to the same premise, which is (once all the fluff is taken away) that the collective is more important than the individual (hence making the individual expendable, hence why communism/socialism has a very poor human rights record. Very easy to justify killing people when they can be dismissed as unimportant). One just involves the government passing itself off as the voice of the collective.
It obviously was Europeans as there did not exist any type of America because the United States of America "was" in the United Kingdom and it's other people where they descended from, but when I state "America", I mean the entitlement this has lead.
And these diseases could have be prevented, there was no reason for small pox to be there and they would not need to experience this to develope resistance. That is not even my point, my point is that through your logic it would justify helping Africa by allowing it to die by that logic. "Indians would've remained trapped in a day to day struggle for survival for a lot longer than they were".
This is not true, this is a very clouded perspective of socialism and communism. This is what communism might lead to be if it is done incorrectly, it's idea is that we have a collective society that supports each other, though people as Joseph Stalin have developed this in such a way that it's focus is indeed on the collective's entitlement. If we look at communism through a direct perspective, we can see that that one of it's core principles is equality, which contradicts the execution of certain figures.