Who Are "Wrong" to Colonize and Take Land from Other People?

The S&W 357 revolver is the most accurate intermediate bore handgun in the world. Only the 22LR is more accurate. Revolvers are great for accuracy in the mid range calibers.

And the new S&W 500 caliber revolver sets a new playing field for ultra high power handguns. Although even the 500 is inferior to any slug shotgun for any kind of defense where you need ultra high power -- as in shooting bears in self defense.

 

He could only do this by using the White man's guns. The Henry and Winchester rifles were vastly superior to the stupid Springfield single shot rifles used by the US Army at the time. I saw lots of stupid while I served in the Army---it's a generational problem.

 

True, BUT you can reload a bow and arrow faster than a musketeer can reload his rifle.

So the Red Man had his chance early on. He/they just missed it.

 

Ultimately at the international level, I believe Aristotle was right -- there really is no morality.

The only thing that matters to one civilization over another is who is mightier.

 

Today, in 2018, each of the major powers is a superpower in their own geographic region.

The USA is a superpower in North America, but fairly lame anywhere else. We have the world's most powerful Navy, and it is strategic (big nukes) as well, but we really cannot influence anyone anywhere else. Syria has most recently proved that.

Russia is a superpower in Eastern Europe. Ukraine has recently proved that.

China is a superpower in East Asia. They are proving that now by propping up N.Korea and feeding them oil in spite of UN sanctions to the contrary.

South Africa and Australia have gone pacifist in their own neighborhoods. Australia depends on the US 7th Fleet to guard them and at the same time they spit in our face.

Argentina has been quiet since UK beat them in the Falklands.

India and Pakistan have a shaky detent going.

Indonesia minds their own business and hopes for more tourism to their beaches and islands.

There is no morality about it. It is only about might.

The Catholic Pope is not mute but he is impotent in the 21st Century.

 

If you had said in the 1500's that the Spanish were immoral for conquering Latin America, you would have been laughed at. But even then they needed an excuse, and their excuse was the Church and the Holy Cross of Jesus. And as such the native Latin Americans were heathens.

Same in the 1600's with the French, Dutch, and English in North America. While the French concentrated on the fur trade and had quite good relations with the Native Americans, the Dutch and the English fought battles against the French and their Indian allies.

The English exodus from England was billed as religious freedom driven to escape the Anglican Church. It was mostly just a land grab for "free land" available in the colonies. Same was true of the Dutch.

In the 1800's the U.S. Cavalry expelled the Indians in a naked land grab sanctioned by Washington DC. It was shameful. But since the Indians were heathen the Protestants used religion as their excuse.

Seems like every civilization (including the American one) needs an excuse to justify pillage and murder of other peoples (you must pluralize people to peoples when you refer to other peoples like this -- grammar note).

Religion is as good as any other excuse.

The Russians don't use religion however -- they use "Russian heritage" and other propaganda now.

The Chinese de facto use race. They want the white man out of Asia. This has been an issue since the turn of the 1900s. That's why they prop up N.Korea over the USA.

 

Ah, your defense of Hitler again? Or is it ISIS you are defending?

The tactics used by the US military against NAs make ISIS look like humanitarians. The US military "used brutal warfare, torture and genocide." They used women and children as human shields. They promised no harm of they surrendered, and then killed all men, elderly and little children, using the women remaining as "rape comfort girls" for soldiers and settlers. They charged into NA towns - peaceful, never had fought and had relocated as had been ordered, killing every child, woman and child. They put NA civilians on thousand mile death marches in the winter. There is NO atrocity they did not commit and most were taught and recorded formal military tactics.

The OPer does the dunderheaded thing of stereotyping all NAs, and then claims this justified any violence, torture and murder against all NAs. In his logic, literally anyone has an absolute right to murder anyone and as many people as they want to - because someone of their race had done so in the past.

The OPer is arguing for pure sadistic and sociopathic amorality, nothing else.

 

Who is blaming "only Whites"? And 'white privilege' is indeed a cultural fact. As was 'Mongol Privilege' several centuries ago. That 'privilege' is not morally excused by success.

 

The repeating rifle made the bow and arrow completely obsolete.

The only modern military use of the bow and arrow has been by Rambo.

 

Yup, the repeating rifle was an innovation of the late 1800's.

In their various forms, starting with the Henry's, they have all been "assault rifles" even though Adolf did not come up with that terminology until 1942.

 

Ok so I see -- you are calling the great Protestant Reformation "white privilege".

Always wondered about that.

I'll stick with Aristotle though -- and "might makes right".

 

China will have much to say about "white privilege" in east Asia from now on.

You can think of them as the modern Mongols.

"Yellow privilege" ???

 

No more of a defense of Hitler, than Andrew Jackson, or Churchill.

So, who besides Whites and Christians have been wrong for stealing other people's land?

 

Greataxe, the cracker inhabitants of Cedarville (or Union Town) that we faced down in the late seventies were a bunch of hicks. They thought they were going to steal from us. We did get into OK just in front of their deputy dawgs. Close thing.

 

I don't think you voted. So who has been wrong over time in stealing land?

 

That is a 100% lie diametrically opposite of the truth. But for the Catholic Pope decreeing that NAs were humans with souls, the Spanish would have continued their TOTAL extermination of ALL NAs - as they had successfully done on EVERY Caribbean Island. CHRISTIANS were the ONLY hope NAs had. Secularists wanted to exterminate all of them, literally.

 

I think the Spanish were on higher moral ground for taking down the Aztecs.

Jimminy Cricket! What redeeming morals did the Aztec religion and people have? Their leaders were fascists, who thought they were Gods---literally. They killed tens of thousands of their enemies at a time and stacked their skulls.

Who in their right mind would want people like that still in power today raiding the territory of others to use as slaves and human sacrifices? I wouldn't. I'd complain to the UN human rights commission.

 

The Spanish were religious fascists who tortured their opponents, raid others' territories for slaves, and conducted human sacrifice in the the name of Roman Catholicism.

The only difference from the Aztecs was that the Europeans had given up eating their enemies' hearts by then.

 

I recommend you don't travel out west. You come to my house you accept my rules.

 

All are welcome in America who honor the Constitution and abide by it.

 

This is the classic thread which requires contextualization, historical contextualization. Historians shouldn't judge, they should understand and explain.

In History [with capital "H"] there have been [and there are] expansive civilizations who have seen ages of conquests and colonization. Right or wrong? What? In nature there is natural selection and competition for resources is common and norman [it's natural!].

So, if we contextualize imperial conquests and colonization we won't say that they were "right" or "wrong", they were the natural and obvious consequences of the expansion of this or that civilization and/or power.

 

Fascism didn't existed in the 16th century, you're applying to spanish morale standarts that didn't existed at that moment.
About spanish, the one who got in the new world were soldiers. You just have to read a little bit how were war at that times, inside europe or outside europe to know they weren't human right or rules of war (well they were some few).

 

Avoid "present-ism" is the point. I am not "applying moral standards" to the conquistadores, I am using terms with which we are familiar today to examine what happened then.

I most certainly can suggest that fascist points (white exclusivism, cultural and resource appropriation, exploitation of the workers, etc.) certainly did inform Spanish colonialism.

 

I think the point of the white OPer is that anyone would be justified to rape, torture, murder and torture him and everyone in his family and steal everything they have including their home because 1.) Hitler also was a white guy who did this, 2.) many of his ancestors did so in the past and 3.) there have been white people in the past who have committed, rape, torture, murder, theft and stealing other people's homes. His view is that ALL people are guilty of ANY offenses anyone of their race ever committed.

 

The OPer also is claiming that the Spanish Inquisition proves the Spanish were morally superior than the people of the Caribbean islands - who were 100% literally exterminated on 100% of every island nation by the Spanish.

The Spanish would round up as many as they needed for slaves and outright slaughter everyone else. When they had worked the slaves to death to the last one, then they imported slaves from Africa.

The OPer says that proves the Spanish were morally superior to the people of the Caribbean because of what Apache's did in the West United States.

Apparently his historical research is based upon watching old black and white cowboys and indians movies.

And, of course, he agrees with the natural right of Mexicans, Central Americans and South Americans flooding into California and taking over the state - because that's how it has worked across history.