I had never thought about it this way and kind of always thought that it was kind of unfair for Columbus and the European settlers to take the land from the Native Americans. I always just kind of justified it by saying that it was just the expansion of the world and that it was inevitable.
However, listen to this point made by Michael Knowles when he slams Columbus for stealing the Native Americans' land and points out that the Native Americans were battling each other and stealing land from one-another, so how is that different than what Columbus did? Just because he had more advanced weapons and technology, that somehow makes it worse than what the Native Americans were doing to each other?
Am I the only one that's just now thinking of that?
Wonder if the "whataboutism" twins will comment on this.
"It is okay to kill people and take their land and force them into poverty on reservations because other people do it also."
That being said I am not one who thinks the native Americans should be entitled to whatever land they want, but I feel that if we are truly a moral country (which Christians claim we are) then we should treat them better than we did. We lied and broke treaty after treaty. We owe them something for that.
So the professor's question is "How can one argue that descendants of indigenous tribes have no ancestral claim to land?" and the response back is that since some tribes warred with each other that there's no way that we can designated any land as belonging to one tribe.
This is irrelevant if the context of the debate is returning land from the American government (or any other government based on which nation we're having this conversation in). At that point you'd be discussing the land they had that was taken from them by the current government.
The point about differentiating between ethnicities is also a bit irrelevant. The discussion as far as I have seen is for land to return to sovereign tribes.
If we're asking "is subjugating groups of people and seizing land is immoral?", the answer is yes, no matter how many people have done it.
I find it hypocritical that Ben Shapiro would host this content considering his support for Israel.
Attempts to underscore the genocide that occurred after Europeans arrive is also troubling, considering that Europeans directly caused the indigenous population to shrink by about 80% within a century and a half of their arrival. The best accounts of Columbus gloss over his treatment of native populations while the worst give a little more credit than is due to historical rumors, but it's safe to say he wasn't a hero.
(04-24-2019, 09:41 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: I had never thought about it this way and kind of always thought that it was kind of unfair for Columbus and the European settlers to take the land from the Native Americans. I always just kind of justified it by saying that it was just the expansion of the world and that it was inevitable.
However, listen . . . to this point made by Michael Knowles when he slams Columbus for stealing the Native Americans' land and points out that the Native Americans were battling each other and stealing land from one-another, so how is that different than what Columbus did? Just because he had more advanced weapons and technology, that somehow makes it worse than what the Native Americans were doing to each other?
Am I the only one that's just now thinking of that?
Is it wrong to think that way?
If so, why is it wrong?
Whether it is wrong or not depends on what values or standards you are employing to judge Columbus' actions.
If you think that people have universal rights to equality, liberty, property, security and dignity (per the UN), and that taking these by force is wrong, then you have to condemn Columbus' actions. His actions are not made retroactively ok because some Indians in Mexico were also taking land from some other Indians in Mexico in 1492, any more than it is ok that I steal your car because people are stealing cars in California and Florida too.
On the other hand, if you start from the conviction that rights are tied to and prioritized by ethnic/racial status, then your judgement of Columbus could be very different. E.g., rights of whites/Europeans cancel the rights of Native Americans whenever the group conflict over liberty/property issues. That was also likely the view of those Indians taking land from other Indians.
One of the questions which should be added to any discussion like this is, what are the values or standards that we ourselves want to stand for, or that we want the U.S. to stand for. Do we really ever want to be arguing that our side of a fight is no worse than anyone else just because it has better killing technlogy, if our side is also taking away people's liberty and property by force?
(04-24-2019, 10:07 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I find it hypocritical that Ben Shapiro would host this content considering his support for Israel.
I could see where there would be a conflict regarding the original establishment of the State, but now he would just say that Israel is entitled to the land because they have the power to keep it.
Nothing moral or religious about supporting modern day Israel, just help them keep it because they are supposed to be our friends.
(04-24-2019, 09:41 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: I had never thought about it this way and kind of always thought that it was kind of unfair for Columbus and the European settlers to take the land from the Native Americans. I always just kind of justified it by saying that it was just the expansion of the world and that it was inevitable.
However, listen to this point made by Michael Knowles when he slams Columbus for stealing the Native Americans' land and points out that the Native Americans were battling each other and stealing land from one-another, so how is that different than what Columbus did? Just because he had more advanced weapons and technology, that somehow makes it worse than what the Native Americans were doing to each other?
Am I the only one that's just now thinking of that?
Is it wrong to think that way?
If so, why is it wrong?
Would Jesus kill them and take their lands because they were doing it, too?
(04-24-2019, 11:01 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I could see where there would be a conflict regarding the original establishment of the State, but now he would just say that Israel is entitled to the land because they have the power to keep it.
Nothing moral or religious about supporting modern day Israel, just help them keep it because they are supposed to be our friends.
Valid distinction, though I assume a lot of contemporary supporters still root their support in the idea that there is an ancestral claim to the land, but I doubt someone as intellectually dishonest as Ben Shapiro would admit to holding that view in this context.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(04-30-2019, 12:44 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Thank god today's residents of America never fight amongst themselves, or else someone else killing us and taking our land would be ok.
They were all separate nations so it's not exactly the same. What was done when Europeans arrived here was no better or worse than what has been done around the world since the beginning of humans.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
(04-30-2019, 01:14 PM)michaelsean Wrote: They were all separate nations so it's not exactly the same. What was done when Europeans arrived here was no better or worse than what has been done around the world since the beginning of humans.
Right, which is why I'm not worried about this invasion from Mexico. It's just the way the works works. People rape and pillage and take over and that's just human nature.
(04-30-2019, 01:17 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Right, which is why I'm not worried about this invasion from Mexico. It's just the way the works works. People rape and pillage and take over and that's just human nature.
And people fight back.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
![[Image: 7LNf.gif]](https://i.gifer.com/7LNf.gif)
![[Image: ulVdgX6.jpg]](http://i.imgur.com/ulVdgX6.jpg)
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
