He was young and had military training. This was far from his only option.
Fun fact: USAID promotes circumcision in Africa as a way to reduce HIV transmission.
Union dues and used books.
Yes this is largely correct after the US was born. It was fairly routine for the US to make a treaty and then for squatters to invade, putting pressure to make another treaty that would cede the land squatters occupy.
Militias were also very important and we're often funded by state and federal backing. Various settler nightmares of slave revolt and Native resistance could move the frontier rabble to violence quickly. Native groups with season rounds would arrive at a seasonal ground to harvest food and find settlers were squatting. The militia would respond to "native invasion" with violence and the US could play dumb or incompetent.
There were occasions were it would not workout for settlers tho. They would be executed, or otherwise punished, by a Tribe for squatting. Some treaties allowed for this and the US could not legally retaliate. But this isn't always the way it worked.
In fact, situations like this even lead to civil war among some nations, including the Creek Civil War which happens around the time of the war of 1812 and the death of Tecumseh.
Some factions of Native aristocracy adopted accommodationist approaches toward the US, utilizing chattle enslavement of African captives. Tecumseh came around to many tribes seeking to build a confederation to halt US expansion. Some of his relatives among the Creeks were sympathetic but others viewed the US as a necessary ally. Tecumseh was disappointed and promised to stamp the ground when he arrived back home in Shawnee territory and thus predicted the New Madrid faultline earthquake of 1811 which further radicalized many Creeks called the red stick Creeks. They decided to attack white settlement and killed several settlers, but some were caught and executed by the aristocratic council which sparked a Civil War. Andrew Jackson intervened in the war and won for the US, securing the treaty of fort Jackson which ceded large portions of so called Georgia and Alabama, despite the apparent loyalty of Creek aristocrats.
So the pressure of squatting settlers and their militias worked in numerous ways.
I still think that, over the entire population of Israel, people who think that way are in the minority. Most people in any nation just want peace and prosperity for themselves, rather than the destruction of others to expand political borders.
A bit optimistic. Do you think they would dismantle their own state over a desire for peace? This existence of the Israeli state is violence, it's the opposite of peace. If people support that violence, they do not support peace. And if they are settling on Palestinian land, that is an act of war. The arbitrary desires of random people are superfluous.
Various cowardly historians have tirelessly tried to frame other genocides in a similar way, always seeking to excuse the atrocities because the historical figures involved, and the population at large didn't always express intense desire to commit genocide. But it is superfluous, it's a red herring, because they routinely hired people with a history of atrocity and reaped the benifits as if they expected them.
What "long-forgotten" war are you talking about? Who forgot? Why should it be a good thing to stop fighting? Who do you speak for?
It doesn't even make any sense period. States are the ones that delineate "rights." A sovereign state would never need to affirm its "rights" or have them affirmed, unless their sovereignty was conditional.
So, all of this is a show the international (imperial) community plays to endorse the genocide. The US gives the occupier of Palestine the "right" to defend itself from blowback and demands support from its other vassals and victims to solidify the sovereignty of an illegitimate project through their recognition as legitimate players. Yet this seemingly challenges the sovereignty of the project, almost as if it is just a US colony in need of permission....
The US would never - maybe not even rhetorically - rely on rights granted to it by the international community to assert its imperial sovereignty. The society of states is such a fucking joke.
I dont think gamers know what they want.
Is it really silencing dissent to point out monogamy is more complex than your strawman? It's hardly a call out to do so. I think it is worth mentioning that merely being the mirror image of dominant structures can not only end up supporting them, but developing those structures. That isn't "not all men" or whatever, it's just respect for the dialectic. It's not 2016 anymore.
IMO There are too many performative non-Christians that are happy just making "owning the conservatives" their identity and it shows in the static discourses. This is a problem in addressing systemic issues because any attempt at actually putting vitality into the discourse beyond dunking on idiots instead of responding to the dynamics of the world is dismissed as some kind of reactionary regression or an accusation.
The second I saw MLK's name I immediately though I was about to read a dogshit take. You did not disapoint.
Apparently that isn't a question for the actions he took? The result is nothing. The left loves a martyr, and our obsession with martyrdom and purity is a feature of the genocide. It's never time to actually put our skills to use and organize or take risks. If it is then we don't do anything beyond profile building and concern trolling. Making statements and pretending to die by lying on the ground while we chant that "we are all Palestinians" when we know damn well we aren't. It's such a disturbing ruse to witness.
And now this. Literal performative suicide. It's a fucking embarrassment. If anyone has faith in the left let this be a moment to lose that ridiculous faith once and for all.