Colonial Thread

[Delightful]

Because we so rudely invaded the Bad Day thread and made it all about colonialists.

So now we've retreated to our own space where we can discuss things without stepping on anyone else's toes and giving them Bad things to complain about. Yay!

For posterity, the conversation started here.

Edited December 1, 2015 by Ookla the Fierce

[DreamEternal]

Complaining about colonization... Isn't that too one sided and... political? I feel I am not knowledgeable enough to play devil's advocate in this, and I dislike one sided discussions, even if I happen to agree.

[ThirdGen]

If you want to voluntarily join a political discussion, what's the problem?  It's in its own thread now.

[TwiLyghtSansSparkles she/her]

I say it's only political if we drag modern politics into it. If we make it all about how one party just wants to make things better but the other party keeps blocking their efforts, for instance, than it'd get political. I'd say this sort of discussion is more historical and social.

[Delightful]

I say either join the conversation or don't, just be polite and thoughtful either way. I don't see it as a harmful discussion in any way.

[Voidus]

Also I've had arguments of religion and politics on the Shard before, people here are mature enough to handle delicate topics like that without blowing up at the opposition so if it becomes a bit political I don't think it matters much.

Now here's why all democrats are wrong...  

[Kobold King he/him]

So the discussion is over? I was about to ask Mestiv what he meant when he said the Native Americans didn't have centuries of experience with war, since I am not familiar with the North American natives.

Well, please don't reply to this post, I don't wish to derail this thread even more.

 

 

I don't know what Mestiv meant, but there was warfare in the Americas prior to the Europeans. A number of tribes were incredibly violent, killing any foreigners they detected in their territories and keeping their scalps as trophies. However, war was a fairly static thing to them; for the most part, the constant state of war between certain tribes did not bring accelerated technological innovation like it did in European societies.

 

So yeah. No one claims that the Native American tribes were all universally saints, but their infighting does not excuse the colonial genocide of their people. (Like one guy at my church argues. )

 

 

[DreamEternal]

So yeah. No one claims that the Native American tribes were all universally saints, but their infighting does not excuse the colonial genocide of their people. (Like one guy at my church argues. )

Actualy, some misguided people do claim that. Mestiv didn't mean that, but I thought he did.

Well, still better than what the guy you mentioned claims.

[TwiLyghtSansSparkles she/her]

I don't know what Mestiv meant, but there was warfare in the Americas prior to the Europeans. A number of tribes were incredibly violent, killing any foreigners they detected in their territories and keeping their scalps as trophies. However, war was a fairly static thing to them; for the most part, the constant state of war between certain tribes did not bring accelerated technological innovation like it did in European societies.

So yeah. No one claims that the Native American tribes were all universally saints, but their infighting does not excuse the colonial genocide of their people. (Like one guy at my church argues. )

It's also somewhat pointless to argue about Native American culture, as if it were one homogeneous thing. Despite Hollywood priming us to see it that way, North American tribes were as diverse as the rest of the world. Apache culture was a completely separate thing from Seneca culture, and the Sioux were as different from the Hopi as the Polish are from the Japanese. So it bugs me when people argue that "Nativd American Culture" was uniformly bad, because there was no such thing.

[Kobold King he/him]

Actualy, some misguided people do claim that. Mestiv didn't mean that, but I thought he did.

Well, still better than what the guy you mentioned claims.

 

 

When he told me that the Native Americans had relinquished their right to the land because of all the violence they had perpetrated against each other, I had only one response to him.

 

"Hundred. Years'. War."

[Voidus]

It's also somewhat pointless to argue about Native American culture, as if it were one homogeneous thing. Despite Hollywood priming us to see it that way, North American tribes were as diverse as the rest of the world. Apache culture was a completely separate thing from Seneca culture, and the Sioux were as different from the Hopi as the Polish are from the Japanese. So it bugs me when people argue that "Nativd American Culture" was uniformly bad, because there was no such thing.

Same thing with Australian-Aboriginal culture, there are a lot of shared stories and similarities but there were hundreds of tribes, they were nomads who sparsely interacted with each other. People talk about things like 'the Aboriginal language' but there were dozens if not hundreds of different languages and dialects.

Although like all modern day Australians it is true that they all rode around on Kangaroos.

[Kobold King he/him]

Although like all modern day Australians it is true that they all rode around on Kangaroos.

 

 

I heard that there were rival tribes who rode emus, and that the enemy tribes staged jousting tournaments in the middle of the Outback over it.

Edited December 1, 2015 by Kobold King

[Voidus]

I heard that there were rival tribes who rode emus, and that the enemy tribes staged jousting tournaments in the middle of the Outback over it.

We do not speak of the emu tribes!

Because they had a rich cultural heritage that extended far beyond their mode of transportation, and reducing an entire peoples history to merely a single interesting fact is disrespectful.

[KidWayne he/him]

I say it's only political if we drag modern politics into it. If we make it all about how one party just wants to make things better but the other party keeps blocking their efforts, for instance, than it'd get political. I'd say this sort of discussion is more historical and social.

I can't say why, but as I pondered what if anything I could add to this conversation, I kept coming back to TwiLyght's statement about how one party just wants to make things better, but others keep opposing their efforts. I get that she was referring to the Republican party's opposition to the Democratic party's agenda here in the United States. However, there's something about the "they just want to make things better" line of reasoning that seems to connect with what I imagine the rationale behind the empires to be (and that of their colonists).

 

More specifically, why did the European colonists do what they did in America? The usual boilerplate answer that academia pushes is that the Europeans came to America to extract resources (indulging in their base desires to rape & pillage along the way). That is undoubtedly part of the answer; it is likely an accurate explanation for the motivations of some of the colonists and perhaps even the aristocrats sending the colonists across the Atlantic. However, I think that most people think of themselves as basically good, they likely saw their actions in a much different light.

 

I think that most the European colonists believed themselves to be enlightened pilgrims bringing the glories of civilization to the savages. That motivation also explains the religious colonists who viewed their mission in the New World as a holy calling to evangelize all the natives and convert them to Christianity. In other words, both the secular and religious colonists "just want[ed] to make things better" for everyone including the natives. However, those natives "[kept] blocking their efforts" to civilize them because the natives liked things the way that they were just fine. It seems to me that better appears to be a relative term depending on your perspective. With some notable exceptions, both imperial conquest and genocide seem to require some sort of justification outside of the desire for selfish gain.

[Kobold King he/him]

I can't say why, but as I pondered what if anything I could add to this conversation, I kept coming back to TwiLyght's statement about how one party just wants to make things better, but others keep opposing their efforts. I get that she was referring to the Republican party's opposition to the Democratic party's agenda here in the United States. However, there's something about the "they just want to make things better" line of reasoning that seems to connect with what I imagine the rationale behind the empires to be (and that of their colonists).

 

More specifically, why did the European colonists do what they did in America? The usual boilerplate answer that academia pushes is that the Europeans came to America to extract resources (indulging in their base desires to rape & pillage along the way). That is undoubtedly part of the answer; it is likely an accurate explanation for the motivations of some of the colonists and perhaps even the aristocrats sending the colonists across the Atlantic. However, I think that most people think of themselves as basically good, they likely saw their actions in a much different light.

 

I think that most the European colonists believed themselves to be enlightened pilgrims bringing the glories of civilization to the savages. That motivation also explains the religious colonists who viewed their mission in the New World as a holy calling to evangelize all the natives and convert them to Christianity. In other words, both the secular and religious colonists "just want[ed] to make things better" for everyone including the natives. However, those natives "[kept] blocking their efforts" to civilize them because the natives liked things the way that they were just fine. It seems to me that better appears to be a relative term depending on your perspective. With some notable exceptions, both imperial conquest and genocide seem to require some sort of justification outside of the desire for selfish gain.

 

 

Unfortunately, people trying to do good can do far greater evils than a purely selfish person ever could. Take the Stolen Generations. From an economic perspective, there was no purpose for stealing Aboriginal children out of the arms of their mothers and sticking them in boarding schools. It was costly. It was difficult. The only real purpose for it was the moral idea that Aboriginal culture was inferior and that the children deserved to be enlightened by the superior colonial culture.

 

Thoreau once said that if he were told a man was coming to beat him up, gag him, and steal his belongings, he'd hunker down in his cabin and wait it out. But if he was told that this man was coming to do something "for his own good," he'd pack a few scant belongings and head for the hills. Good people will always be more dangerous than evil ones.

Edited December 1, 2015 by Kobold King

[KidWayne he/him]

We do not speak of the emu tribes!

Because they had a rich cultural heritage that extended far beyond their mode of transportation, and reducing an entire peoples history to merely a single interesting fact is disrespectful.

Topper: Uh... I heard that, umm... well, my cousin's sister's boyfriend is from Austrailia, and he said that there was a tribe of intelligent koalas that rode around on chariots pulled by Tasmanian devils. Yep, they were all trying to get back at Americans and rabbits for the insensitivity and disrespect represented by Taz on Looney Tunes.

Serious statement: I had a Spanish adjunct professor in college say much the same thing about Taco Bell since they must consider all Mexicans to be dogs as evidenced by the Spanglish-speaking chihuahua that did the Taco Bell TV commericals in the 1990's & early 2000'S.

[Delightful]

Unfortunately, people trying to do good can do far greater evils than a purely selfish person ever could. Take the Stolen Generations. From an economic perspective, there was no purpose for stealing Aboriginal children out of the arms of their mothers and sticking them in boarding schools. It was costly. It was difficult. The only real purpose for it was the moral idea that Aboriginal culture was inferior and that the children deserved to be enlightened by the superior colonial culture.

Thoreau once said that if he were told a man was coming to beat him up, gag him, and steal his belongings, he'd hunker down in his cabin and wait it out. But if he was told that this man was coming to do something "for his own good," he'd pack a few scant belongings and head for the hills. Good people will always be more dangerous than evil ones.

We can go back to "every man is the hero of his own story" on this. Who's a good person? Who's a bad one?

I do believe there is objective good and evil; my definitions won't necessarily match other people's definitions and where does that leave us?

[Voidus]

We can go back to "every man is the hero of his own story" on this. Who's a good person? Who's a bad one?

I do believe there is objective good and evil; my definitions won't necessarily match other people's definitions and where does that leave us?

This is a discussion I have fairly frequently so I'll just add my usual point on objective morality here.

The problem with objective morality is that we're subjective beings, even if such a moral code existed it would be subject to our subjective views and emotions. Look at Christianity, one book (Well 66-73 books depending, but one collection of books anyway) that gives objective rules yet there's a thousand different denominations each with their own interpretation.

[Kobold King he/him]

This is a discussion I have fairly frequently so I'll just add my usual point on objective morality here.

The problem with objective morality is that we're subjective beings, even if such a moral code existed it would be subject to our subjective views and emotions. Look at Christianity, one book (Well 66-73 books depending, but one collection of books anyway) that gives objective rules yet there's a thousand different denominations each with their own interpretation.

 

 

And yet the Golden Rule, which was expressed by Christ to be the single most important idea in the entire religion, is fairly simple, objective, and impossible to twist.

 

Treat others like you would like to be treated.

 

If you wouldn't want your own children stolen away from you, don't do it.

 

If you wouldn't want aliens to come onto your land, claim it, and shoot you for being on it, don't do it to other humans.

 

If you wouldn't want to be put in shackles and worked to death in a mine, don't do it.

 

If you wouldn't want someone to shout at you for your beliefs, don't do it to other people.

 

 

A lot of Christians ignore it in favor of twisted interpretations of other verses, but I firmly believe the Golden Rule is the single core of morality that should hold true across the entire universe.

[TwiLyghtSansSparkles she/her]

We can go back to "every man is the hero of his own story" on this. Who's a good person? Who's a bad one?

I do believe there is objective good and evil; my definitions won't necessarily match other people's definitions and where does that leave us?

 

I'd say one method is to look at results. Here in the US, the government's actions led to over a century of broken families, alcohol abuse, and lack of self-sufficiency. It's worth pointing out that the lack of self-sufficiency was very much intentional, as the government sanctioned mass slaughters of buffalo to deprive Plains tribes of their way of life, which was dependent on the buffalo for food, clothing, and other tools. Elsewhere, the government gradually shrank reservation land so those living there would have less and less area to farm, further increasing their dependence on government handouts. All of these problems led to over a century of ingrained racism on the whites' part.

 

 

This is a discussion I have fairly frequently so I'll just add my usual point on objective morality here.

The problem with objective morality is that we're subjective beings, even if such a moral code existed it would be subject to our subjective views and emotions. Look at Christianity, one book (Well 66-73 books depending, but one collection of books anyway) that gives objective rules yet there's a thousand different denominations each with their own interpretation.

 

Funny you should mention that, since it was another problem when it came to Anglo-Native relations. Each denomination has a different interpretation of Scripture, and sees other denominations as wrong. So one tribe might have a dozen different denominations each preaching their own brand of Christianity. In the case of Chief Spotted Tail of the Brule, he had a Methodist minister "talk him out of his old faith," and so he became a Methodist. Then a Baptist came along and talked him into becoming a Baptist, and the same with a Presbyterian, and an Episcopalian. Finally he said, "I have always believed in the Great Spirit, and worshipped him in my own way. These people don't seem to want to change my belief in the Great Spirit, but to change my way of talking to him." 

 

It's one of the aspects of American Christianity that I find kind of ridiculous, this super-polite turf war we have over denominations. It's not doing anyone any good. Yes, everyone is going to interpret the Bible differently, but that doesn't mean one group of people are right while another group is wrong. 

[Voidus]

And yet the Golden Rule, which was expressed by Christ to be the single most important idea in the entire religion, is fairly simple, objective, and impossible to twist.

 

Treat others like you would like to be treated.

 

If you wouldn't want your own children stolen away from you, don't do it.

 

If you wouldn't want aliens to come onto your land, claim it, and shoot you for being on it, don't do it to other humans.

 

If you wouldn't want to be put in shackles and worked to death in a mine, don't do it.

 

If you wouldn't want someone to shout at you for your beliefs, don't do it to other people.

 

 

A lot of Christians ignore it in favor of twisted interpretations of other verses, but I firmly believe the Golden Rule is the single core of morality that should hold true across the entire universe.

Agreed, it's a shame that people of all religions tend to gloss over their equivalents in favor of whatever parts support their own views.

It's a principle that's almost universal to various philosophical and religious positions and yet for some reason mankind just can't seem to grasp it.

[Kobold King he/him]

Agreed, it's a shame that people of all religions tend to gloss over their equivalents in favor of whatever parts support their own views.

It's a principle that's almost universal to various philosophical and religious positions and yet for some reason mankind just can't seem to grasp it.

 

 

To me, the fact that we're all told to behave this way but so few of us actually do is the best evidence for the existence of some sort of God. After all, if the Golden Rule were just a genetic program we evolved with, shouldn't it be recognizable in more cultures' ways of life? Shouldn't it be easier to practice?

 

Personally, I see religion and history as the story of a Creator Whose creations rebelled against him and began hurting each other, with Him working tirelessly to get them to be nice to each other ever since. I don't see him as a tyrant or as a busybody who spoke down from heaven just to tell us not to be gay. I see Him as an entity Who epitomizes the Golden Rule and just wants us to live in harmony.

 

 

But I suppose I'm derailing the thread that was created to stop another thread derailment.

[Orlion Blight he/him]

The problem with the Golden Rule is that it does not give consistent results. If I believe I am scum and should be treated as such, the results of following the Golden Rule will be that I treat people like scum.

Let's take Szeth as an example: Szeth wants to be killed in mortal combat. Following the Golden Rule, Szeth seeks to kill a bunch of people in mortal combat, since that is how he wants to be treated. Is Szeth doing morally good?

The Golden Rule is important, but I do not believe it is anywhere close to being a guide to objective morality, but rather a tool to assure your actions are authentic to yourself.

[ThirdGen]

The problem with the Golden Rule is that it does not give consistent results. If I believe I am scum and should be treated as such, the results of following the Golden Rule will be that I treat people like scum.

Let's take Szeth as an example: Szeth wants to be killed in mortal combat. Following the Golden Rule, Szeth seeks to kill a bunch of people in mortal combat, since that is how he wants to be treated. Is Szeth doing morally good?

The Golden Rule is important, but I do not believe it is anywhere close to being a guide to objective morality, but rather a tool to assure your actions are authentic to yourself.

 

Correct; for the most part, people behave in a way they can universalize.  If they believe you're supposed to do what you're told and maintain order, for example, in the military, they may feel a severe disconnect from people whose ideals are of personal expression, or pragmatism, and consider them failures.  If people believe you should let harmless things you don't agree with slide, they'll come into conflict with those who believe the tradition they were raised in is absolute morality for everyone.

[Kobold King he/him]

The problem with the Golden Rule is that it does not give consistent results. If I believe I am scum and should be treated as such, the results of following the Golden Rule will be that I treat people like scum.

Let's take Szeth as an example: Szeth wants to be killed in mortal combat. Following the Golden Rule, Szeth seeks to kill a bunch of people in mortal combat, since that is how he wants to be treated. Is Szeth doing morally good?

The Golden Rule is important, but I do not believe it is anywhere close to being a guide to objective morality, but rather a tool to assure your actions are authentic to yourself.

 

 

I challenge your reasoning on the grounds that there is no one who actually wants to die.

 

Have you ever raised sheep? I have. I had a small but wonderful flock up in Illinois. They frolicked in the fields, grazing to their hearts' content and enjoying the company of their fellow sheep.

 

Then winter would arrive at the doorstep. It would get cold. One of the sheep would catch the chill in her lungs and fall ill. We'd have to stick the ewe in a stall and try to keep her warm, fighting a twofold battle: keeping her body from dying, and keeping her mind from wanting to die.

 

Not everyone realizes that a sheep can lose the will to live. When they're apart from the rest of the flock, scared, sick, and alone, the urge to survive isn't as strong as in a normal sheep. You can see it in their eyes. A hollowness. The zeal for life retreating from the poor animal's soul.

 

But here's the thing about the zeal for life--you can't lose it unless you already have it, and every living thing is born with it. When that sheep was dying in her stall, she didn't actually desire death. What she desired most of all, whether she understood it or not, was to be frolicking with her flock on a warm summer day again. She was happy then, and she wouldn't be this miserable if she didn't at some level want to return to that state.

 

Have you ever been to an industrial chicken farm? Not a lot of people realize that a chicken can lose the will to live. The chickens, cramped in their cages away from the sunlight, have often not felt the natural joy of foraging and roaming the outdoors in all their lives. Their eyes are dead. They give a terrible, cacophonous squawk that you'd never hear a natural-raised chicken emit. Sometimes they just drop dead for no reason, like the spark of life within them was abruptly snuffed out by their terrible conditions.

 

But again, even the chickens didn't truly want to die. Truth be told, they didn't know what they wanted. They couldn't know that they longed for sunlight because they'd never seen the sun. They couldn't know they wanted to eat fresh earthworms instead of their dry crumble because they'd never seen earth. What they'd needed to be happy had been separated from them, and they elected not to live rather than live without it.

 

My point is that you can't challenge the consistency of the Golden Rule with people who want to die because no such person exists. Even the most morbidly depressed suicidal person in the world is only wasting away because he's been cut off from the happiness he truly needs. Death is not something that a single living thing wants. It's only preferable to some alternatives.

 

The Golden Rule understands this. It operates on the assumption that all things desire happiness, and we should work to grant this happiness to as many living things as possible. You cannot use the skewed perspectives of broken, tragic spirits to challenge this idea. Because when you bring them up, you're not talking about people the Golden Rule doesn't apply to.

 

You're talking about the people who need the Golden Rule applied to them the most.