I owe an explanation. I said I would not respond to Marlowe anymore... and in order to spare anyone who would be so inclined to read the threads in question... I feel obliged to give the following synopsis in my view.

Give me one shred of evidence that the state of nature was some Rousseauan paradise in North America just before the civilized man came along and actually recorded some observations for posterity. As it is, your question-begging blameshifting, and the bogus placement of the burden of proof with which you justify it, almost go beyond squishy leftism into mouth-foaming hard leftism.

I replied by posting a link to the Serpent Mound in Ohio. I was willing to ceed you the fact that it was not a "Rousseauan paradise", but I took strong objection to your use of the words "until civilized man". Whether you are cogniscent of it or not, you telegraphed (to me at least) your true view of the native population in this country. It is the manifest destiny that Indians should be slaughtered because Europeans were technologically and morally superior. By using the word "civilized" you are implying that the people here before were "uncivilized". The concept that the native Americans were savage and therefore (implied) better off after their own genocide because "superior" people conquered them doesn't hold much weight with me. I don't feel a great need to explain why this point of view is so offensive to a sentient human being.

I basically called your ideas racist.

But then, you simply replied...
You blew it... Because the mound builders weren't around when the Europeans arrived... I blew it! I then asked, who built the mounds? Native Americans or Europeans? I also alluded to the Aztec pyramids, the Incas, the Adenas and many other great native Amercian civilizations... CIVILIZATIONS. Note the word origin CIVILIZ ... I asked you:

I'm thinkink terminology is getting in our way again. When you say I blew it, do you mean that I don't understand the difference between before Europeans came and after? Or do you mean that I don't understand that native American (Indian) is a code word for only the tribes that were present and accounted for when the white man arrived? I mean, I was under the impression that you were saying "before whites - uncivilized, after whites - civilized"... Did I misunderstand?

To which you now say:

Screamer said something too lame to be worth responding too, and then called me a loser for duly ignoring it.

Factually innaccurate. I said you "blew it" after, and only after, you asserted that I blew it. I never used the word "loser". In fact, I have never called you a name except TROLL. I have been attacking your ideas, not only because I think they are wrong, they are (in this case) textbook racism. I have asked you "who the fuck are you to decide?" (what civilized is). I have not called you a name. There is a distinction. Now, I'll leave you to yourself. Please leave me alone as well.

God grant me the serenity to change the words I cannot accept...

I'm glad we had this discussion though... I found a useful analogy for teaching my 2 year old son. Just like an alcoholic, a nation can go into a state of denial and create a national history just like an alcoholic's personal history. Any history that is too painful or embarassing to remember, simply find a justification for drinking to shift blame because you don't want to face it. NO, WAIT! Alcoholics must make ammends by acknowledging those they have wronged...

Okay, so the analogy breaks down. :-)
What do you think about [link|http://www.geocities.com/webatlantis/|the other dodged question...]?