41–50 of 82 posts
An indigenous woman or child was killed or kicked out of their land this week somewhere in the world.
The amazon forest is good place to start looking. But this is happening in other continents too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I admit to being ignorant of the details in the Tar Sands case, but I don't think that it's relevant to what I was trying to say really. If an injustice is being visited upon a Native population, i'm all for them prevailing in a fight to restore fairness. But human history is what it is, regardless of our modern sensibilities and desire to do better moving forward. Out in the raw brutal nature that existed for most o…
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Back then? Hawaii was made a state in 1959. There was still quite a lot of colonization related conflict happening in the 20th century.
The people of Hawaii actively campaigned for statehood in 1959. Not quite understanding the context of your argument here.
Accounts I've heard explain it as U.S. businessmen (or their proxies) stormed the palace and held the monarchy hostage until a a document dissolving the current nation was signed (under duress).
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii#Overthrow_of_1893_%E2%8...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The justification frequently used for western colonialism/conquest is the principle of “Terra Nullius”, in short, the native peoples with their primative technology are not fully utilising the land, and we’re doing them a favor by conquering them. it turns out after the fact that in many respects, particularly with regards to agriculture, land management, diplomacy, and some areas of engineering, the native people we…
For sure. But there are countless other examples of people being conquered too, all over the world, and not just by Europeans. There is no justification needed, other than that's what humans did back then. It was a much more primitive and brutal example of survival of the fittest. And as much as it offends our sensibilities now, it is the very path that leads us to where we find ourselves today. We can struggle to be…
An example of the relatively rare Tu Quoque logical fallacy in the wild! Or maybe you weren't arguing that it was okay because non Europeans did it, in which case it's more of a red herring.
"There is no justification needed, other than that's what humans did back then. It was a much more primitive and brutal example of survival of the fittest. And as much as it offends our sensibilities now, it is the very path that leads us to where we find ourselves today."
And yet people wrote extensively about their justifications for such behavior back then, and there were those whose sensibilities were offended in the past. For example, this 1550 debate on native captivity and rights, "http://digital.lib.lehigh.edu/trial/justification/newspain/e...
Here's more about Las Casas's defense of native rights, "https://www.thoughtco.com/bartolome-de-las-casas-2136332"
If the question could be considered in the 1500's, I see no reason why we can't talk about it now.
"We can struggle to be more just and compassionate with each other today, but our ancestors lived in a very different and harsh reality. It's not pretty, but it was a reality for a lot longer than this brief period we're living in now."
Compassion and justice aren't some new innovation from this century, but have been a concern of human beings for millennia in a variety of cultures. As well, the idea that we are morally superior to the past, in my personal view, a recipe for moral turpitude, and cultural torpor. It suggests that things are all good now.
Anyway, I feel like papering over the past by saying that we were primitive brutes is a little rich, given that that was the very justification used by so many Europeans for enslavement and genocide; that is, that the civilizing influence of their culture was needed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I admit to being ignorant of the details in the Tar Sands case, but I don't think that it's relevant to what I was trying to say really. If an injustice is being visited upon a Native population, i'm all for them prevailing in a fight to restore fairness. But human history is what it is, regardless of our modern sensibilities and desire to do better moving forward. Out in the raw brutal nature that existed for most o…
[flagged]
I was looking at some of Egypt's history. Kind of interesting the Old Kingdom figured out pyramids, built the biggest only around 100 years after the first, then it was all downhill from there. Makes me wonder if we hit a high point landing people on the moon, and everything's just going to go downhill for the next few thousand years.
If the thesis of Progress & Poverty is correct, then the cyclic nature of civilization is due primarily to the tendency of the labor cost of acquiring unimproved land for productive workers to increase faster than the rate at which wages can be accumulated to acquire it. If this is the case, then the decline of our present phase of civilization may have begun in the 1930s, when state governments in the United States…
When land + labour is the primary means of product, maybe, bu since that hasn't been the case for a while and may not either have been the case in aboriginal territories, I'm not sure it applies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The justification frequently used for western colonialism/conquest is the principle of “Terra Nullius”, in short, the native peoples with their primative technology are not fully utilising the land, and we’re doing them a favor by conquering them. it turns out after the fact that in many respects, particularly with regards to agriculture, land management, diplomacy, and some areas of engineering, the native people we…
For sure. But there are countless other examples of people being conquered too, all over the world, and not just by Europeans. There is no justification needed, other than that's what humans did back then. It was a much more primitive and brutal example of survival of the fittest. And as much as it offends our sensibilities now, it is the very path that leads us to where we find ourselves today. We can struggle to be…
When was the time justification started to be required?
Because people knew it was bad in 15th century already. When it suited them :)
This guy was trying to persuade pope that forcibly converting pagans was a bad idea and that Teutonic Order shouldn't be conquering and ruling over them just cause they are pagans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pawe%C5%82_W%C5%82odkowic
Of course, he only had an opportunity to say so because Poland had an interest in preventing Teutonic Order from growing. But still.
Also - fighting wars isn't something we only did "back then". If you live in a "developed world" odds are - your country fought a war in last 2 decades.
We still do it, right now. Russia invaded Ukraine and annexed parts of it a few years ago and there's still a war going on there as we speak, with hundreds people killed each year.
Israel just bombed Syrian army forces last week and repeatedly pushes Palestinians out of their territory.
USA is fighting a war somewhere almost each year for the last 100 years or so (admitedly - there's little conquering, it's mostly "sphere of influence" stuff).
Iraq and Afghanistan is obvious, and half of NATO participated, including my country.
This is not something we grew out of. It's just that when the system works - it happens far away from the "important" countries, so we can pretend we grew wise and don't do this shit anymore.
It was the same in the late 19th century - you were supposed to fight your wars far away, so you can have your European parts comfy and peaceful. Only when the system fails and you have wars in "important" countries - people suddenly get back to reality.
I was looking at some of Egypt's history. Kind of interesting the Old Kingdom figured out pyramids, built the biggest only around 100 years after the first, then it was all downhill from there. Makes me wonder if we hit a high point landing people on the moon, and everything's just going to go downhill for the next few thousand years.
If the thesis of Progress & Poverty is correct, then the cyclic nature of civilization is due primarily to the tendency of the labor cost of acquiring unimproved land for productive workers to increase faster than the rate at which wages can be accumulated to acquire it. If this is the case, then the decline of our present phase of civilization may have begun in the 1930s, when state governments in the United States…
While talking about an Empire expansion you omit the biggest factor: You expand or grow conquering-stealing-destroying others and the limit for this is geographic, not taxes.
In the particular case of the Roman Empire they needed to communicate all the provinces, and they did that by sea, mainly using the Mediterranean Sea. There was no train, like there is today(which is a tremendous difference as it is several orders of magnitude of difference transporting things).
Once you conquered all the Mediterranean Sea, there was nothing else to conquer, communicating by land was super expensive. Today it is the size of the world, until we get out to other planets.
Also in today's world there are weapons of mass destruction like nuclear weapons. If you try to grow at the expense of others you could get destroyed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
our ancestors lived in a very different and harsh reality You are justifying colonialism through "the world sucks get over it". First Nations have been attacked and their land stolen within the LAST DECADE. The Tar Sands battle is a recent popular example. You couldn't be more ignorant to the facts.
Debating the world as it was in 1492-1800s is hardly relevant to colonization in the 'modern world'. Even the mindset of World War 1 where 70k French or German people would die in a single day vs even the 1960s with Vietnam war (where The ideological parties who are obsessed with viewing history through the lenses of these power dynamics as the only defining metric are inherently irrational and intentionally ignorant…
weren't much different at a far smaller scale
It was in the direct orders and manifesto of the invading parties to conquer and enslave these lands and NOT integrate peacefully.
It applies to the modern world because this forced coercion still exists today. Sad to see so many here not understanding of that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
The threat of nuclear war precipitated the development of a network which could withstand widespread destruction. That's not the same as genocide (as that implies something systematic), but is does seem safe to say that having the Internet (or at least got started having one) is more or less a direct consequence of developing nuclear weapons. I'm not saying such weapons (or the destruction they were designed to creat…