American Indians Colonize the Old world in 1250 BC

[Gradine]

(this is the part where I might piss off [MENTION=57112]Gradine[/MENTION])

Nobody is responsible for the acts of their ancestors. Our Constitution prohibits both hereditary titles and corruption of blood*; it is contrary to our founding ideals to either fetishize or demonize those whose genetic material we happen to carry. Among my ancestors there might be Jefferson Davis or Elizabeth Báthory or Genghis Khan... but screw 'em, I'm not them, I'm me and I'll choose my own path. That's the American way.

Furthermore, there is a principle in moral philosophy (one that is accepted by consensus a lot more strongly than most things in the field) that "ought" implies "can". That is to say, questions of what is morally right and wrong only have bearing on things that are possible. Because it is impossible to change the past or to erase you from existence, we cannot say that you morally shouldn't exist. You do exist. That is a fixed and unchangeable fact. All moralizing has to start from there.

*Yeah, I know, but the general principle is clearly present in the subtext.

I absolutely agree with every part of this.

There is a world of a difference between acknowledging and accepting the acts of ones ancestors and being (or feeling) responsible for them. It is not my intent that anybody should feel personally guilty for the atrocities of their forefathers (and I apologize if I came across that way); quite the opposite in fact. That guilt becomes at best a distraction from any discussion of remedy and at worst leads to knee-jerk defensiveness. But that does not mean we can casually ignore our history or wipe our hands of it. As I said earlier, acknowledging the sins of our past allows us to recognize the dangers inherent in repeating them. This ought not to be a controversial statement.

Where I recognize I differ is that I believe we all have a moral obligation to leave the world a better place than we found it. I admit with some depression that this is not a universal (nor even all that common) mindset, but it is the source of my convictions. There are, pretty clearly, still many consequences from many of those historical atrocities that are felt and faced by the descendants of those who survived some of those same atrocities. I don't feel any sort of responsibility or obligation to apologize for actions of the forefathers, but certainly I feel some obligation to help right some of those wrongs, in whatever limited way I am capable of.

I don't and wont apologize for holding others to these standards.

 

[Gradine]

So if you know how to get world peace but you dont want to do it, can you complain if someone else does it?

Otherwise we are just muddling through the same as we have always done.

Make me believe that genocide is in way capable of achieving world peace. I posit that such a hypothetical strains credulity and stretches all bounds of possibility to the point that it isn't even worth considering.

 

[dragoner]

I am saying it is a morally gray area, you want to present it as black and white.

This statement, and the " ...If your argument is that these people don't belong here..." make it sound as if you are feeling guilty, as I made no comment to these aspects. Respect and being treated fairly should be the normal way everyone is treated, Native Americans should be done so with as well. Telling the truth, is respect, saying genocide is wrong, none of these things take anything away from me or anyone else; as a matter of fact, the more you respect others, the more you are respected in return. I don't ascribe to the idea of collective guilt, however, of the hundreds of billions spent on futile wars, I don't see why not a billion could be given to improve their quality of life and preserve their culture which is something important to us all. History is important, who we are, and where we come from is important. In précis of the thread, this is exactly the minefield that it has wandered into.

 

[Thomas Bowman]

Genocide is a very loaded word. I consider it more of an accident of history. If you are going to accuse my ancestors of deliberate pre-meditated mass murder when all they were trying to do was find a better life for their families, then I suppose you are very determined to heap the "white guilt" on my family. As they say, "Judge not, lest you be judged." You weren't there, all you have is history books to tell you what happened, history books written by human beings with their own prejudices and agendas. The older history books were more sympathetic to the settlers, the younger ones are more sympathetic to the native Americans, the truth is somewhere out there. I don't think the older or the younger history books have all the answers, they tend to focus on different aspects to suit their purposes. My feeling is both cultures were incompatible and leave it at that without trying to assign blame to either side. If you are going to heap on the "white guilt" then I'm done. I think both sides are at fault, some of the Indians were savage and they did murder people, some of the settlers were too, but others had the best of intensions and they do not deserve to be called mass murderers. That would imply intent. I'm on to something else now, I said all there is to say, if you are going to politicize it, then I have better uses of my time.

 

[Riley37]

Gradine agreeing with TheCosmicKid?

Well, there are some things so wrong, that even Churchill and Orwell could find common cause against them.

 

[pemerton]

you have to alter the land to make a farm, to have a hunting ground you leave it as it is.

This isn't true of Australian history/pre-history (ie Indigenous peoples in Australia altered the land to, among other things, facilitate hunting). I don't know whether or not it is true of the United States and Canada.

Can you grow crops in a forest? Agriculture is more efficient than hunting and gathering. A given acre of farmland can support more people than a given acre of forest. I bet you a lot of settlers were thinking about how the Indians were wasting so much land just so they could hunt and gather, and making that land unavailable to farmers as a result.

There's the Lockean theory at work! Notice that it bears zero resemblance to your "Hallooo" story.

No, just stating a fact. Does air rush into a vacuum? Can you blame the air molecules for doing that? The Americas were a vacuum of people, the population density was much lower than in Europe. Europeans had ships, and they saw a lot of land for growing food and feeding themselves, so what do you suggest they do instead, just watch their children starve? Learn to love being a peasant?

Well, this is the premise that most contemporary immigration policies in Europe, North America and Australia are based on.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I absolutely agree with every part of this.

There is a world of a difference between acknowledging and accepting the acts of ones ancestors and being (or feeling) responsible for them. It is not my intent that anybody should feel personally guilty for the atrocities of their forefathers (and I apologize if I came across that way); quite the opposite in fact. That guilt becomes at best a distraction from any discussion of remedy and at worst leads to knee-jerk defensiveness. But that does not mean we can casually ignore our history or wipe our hands of it. As I said earlier, acknowledging the sins of our past allows us to recognize the dangers inherent in repeating them. This ought not to be a controversial statement.

Where I recognize I differ is that I believe we all have a moral obligation to leave the world a better place than we found it. I admit with some depression that this is not a universal (nor even all that common) mindset, but it is the source of my convictions. There are, pretty clearly, still many consequences from many of those historical atrocities that are felt and faced by the descendants of those who survived some of those same atrocities. I don't feel any sort of responsibility or obligation to apologize for actions of the forefathers, but certainly I feel some obligation to help right some of those wrongs, in whatever limited way I am capable of.

I don't and wont apologize for holding others to these standards.

The way I like to put it is: would my moral duty be any different if my ancestors had nothing to do with anything because I was a first-generation immigrant from, oh, let's say Krypton?

 

[Shasarak]

Make me believe that genocide is in way capable of achieving world peace. I posit that such a hypothetical strains credulity and stretches all bounds of possibility to the point that it isn't even worth considering.

That was your suggestion so not sure why I need to convince you. I am glad that we both think that it is ridiculous.

 

[Shasarak]

The way I like to put it is: would my moral duty be any different if my ancestors had nothing to do with anything because I was a first-generation immigrant from, oh, let's say Krypton?

Personally I dont think that it would be a good idea to be subject to the whims of an Illegal Alien. We would probably have more luck with the whims of a Vigilante Billionaire.

 

[Riley37]

The way I like to put it is: would my moral duty be any different if my ancestors had nothing to do with anything because I was a first-generation immigrant from, oh, let's say Krypton?

A Kryptonian immigrant raised on the Kent family farm, heir to the property title, has a personal stake in the matter, though the heritage is adoptive rather than genetic.

SNL did a skit in which Kal-El happened to land in Germany, and he was raised with different values. If the capsule had landed farther north, and Kal-El grew up as an adopted Algonquin... "for truth, justice, and the Native American way!" Though his features might match less conveniently with his adoptive parents.