Native Americans "morally disqualified" from controlling America, apparently

[Juana]

Er... weren't nomadic tribes the exception rather than rule, even in America/Canada? 

The Plains Indians were fairly nomadic, out of necessity. Even then many tribes followed established routes, often returning to the same winter homes and summer hunting grounds.

Yeah, so were the Shoshone, but I still think nomadic natives were the exception.  Hell permanent dwellings go back thousands of years in this part of the country.

This. From what I've been reading (Lies My Teacher Told Me by James Lowen), most tribes were farmers and white encroachment on the land "de-skilled" them, as he put it. The teacher who assigned the book is Native American and the NA studies teacher, so I assume it's correct.

These people are pretty fucking absurd. I like how conquest is one of the criteria for controlling land but they accuse Indian tribes of savagery.

[Cain]

Historically, the right of conquest did come with certain caveats concerning humane treatment of the civilian population, in theory at least.  Vitoria and several others made the case that even in non-Christian nations, certain rules must be adhered to.  Given he was a Catholic theologian, he was probably ignored by Protestants such as the early American settlers, though.

[Adios]

On Tuesday, I posted a column on the settlement of America by Europeans. The column generated so much intense, vitriolic and profane reaction that it threatened to take on a life of its own, and serve as a distraction to the fundamental mission of AFA, even though when I blog I am speaking only for myself and not for the organization. So we took it down.

But the issue I addressed in the column is an important one, and at some point, a rational discussion and debate about it must be held.

The template that the left has generated is that the displacement of indigenous tribes by European colonists and settlers was irredeemably evil. All the land which now comprises the United States was stolen from its rightful owners. Our very presence on this soil is a guilty, tainted presence.

So the question is whether that template is right, or whether the displacement of indigenous nations was consistent with the laws of nature, nature's God, and the law of nations and history.

A lot is at stake here. If Americans believe that the entire history of our nation rests on a horribly evil foundation, then there is nothing to be proud of in American history, and our president is correct to identify America as the source of all evil in the world and to make a career out of apologizing for her very existence.

If, however, there is a moral and ethical basis for our displacement of native American tribes, and if our westward expansion and settlement are in fact consistent with the laws of nature, nature's God, and the law of nations, then Americans have much to be proud of. 

This latter view certainly would not compel us to believe that Americans were never guilty of evil themselves. But saying that America was wrong here, or there, is certainly a different thing than saying that the entire American experiment is rooted in evil. 

It's one thing to have folks throw trash in the stream on occasion, because the trash can be fished out and the water's purity can be restored. It's quite another thing for the stream to be polluted at its headwaters. If the stream is toxic from its very source, then everyone who drinks from it drinks poison into his soul, and we certainly should not be bottling this water and shipping it overseas to peoples looking to slake their thirst for a model of liberty, freedom, prosperity and security.

So this is a conversation that needs to take place. But based on the reaction to my column of Tuesday, America is not mature enough right now for that robust dialogue to occur. Until it is...
http://www.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147503401

[Jenne]

GOD WANTED US TO KILL ALL THE NATIVES!  IT WAS PART OF HIS ULTIMATE PLAN!

[Phox]

On Tuesday, I posted a column on the settlement of America by Europeans. The column generated so much intense, vitriolic and profane reaction that it threatened to take on a life of its own, and serve as a distraction to the fundamental mission of AFA, even though when I blog I am speaking only for myself and not for the organization. So we took it down.

But the issue I addressed in the column is an important one, and at some point, a rational discussion and debate about it must be held.

The template that the left has generated is that the displacement of indigenous tribes by European colonists and settlers was irredeemably evil. All the land which now comprises the United States was stolen from its rightful owners. Our very presence on this soil is a guilty, tainted presence.

So the question is whether that template is right, or whether the displacement of indigenous nations was consistent with the laws of nature, nature's God, and the law of nations and history.

A lot is at stake here. If Americans believe that the entire history of our nation rests on a horribly evil foundation, then there is nothing to be proud of in American history, and our president is correct to identify America as the source of all evil in the world and to make a career out of apologizing for her very existence.

If, however, there is a moral and ethical basis for our displacement of native American tribes, and if our westward expansion and settlement are in fact consistent with the laws of nature, nature's God, and the law of nations, then Americans have much to be proud of. 

This latter view certainly would not compel us to believe that Americans were never guilty of evil themselves. But saying that America was wrong here, or there, is certainly a different thing than saying that the entire American experiment is rooted in evil. 

It's one thing to have folks throw trash in the stream on occasion, because the trash can be fished out and the water's purity can be restored. It's quite another thing for the stream to be polluted at its headwaters. If the stream is toxic from its very source, then everyone who drinks from it drinks poison into his soul, and we certainly should not be bottling this water and shipping it overseas to peoples looking to slake their thirst for a model of liberty, freedom, prosperity and security.

So this is a conversation that needs to take place. But based on the reaction to my column of Tuesday, America is not mature enough right now for that robust dialogue to occur. Until it is...
http://www.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147503401

Head. Desk. Head. Desk. Head. Desk.

[Golden Applesauce]

On Tuesday, I posted a column on the settlement of America by Europeans. The column generated so much intense, vitriolic and profane reaction that it threatened to take on a life of its own, and serve as a distraction to the fundamental mission of AFA, even though when I blog I am speaking only for myself and not for the organization. So we took it down.

But the issue I addressed in the column is an important one, and at some point, a rational discussion and debate about it must be held.

The template that the left has generated is that the displacement of indigenous tribes by European colonists and settlers was irredeemably evil. All the land which now comprises the United States was stolen from its rightful owners. Our very presence on this soil is a guilty, tainted presence.

So the question is whether that template is right, or whether the displacement of indigenous nations was consistent with the laws of nature, nature's God, and the law of nations and history.

A lot is at stake here. If Americans believe that the entire history of our nation rests on a horribly evil foundation, then there is nothing to be proud of in American history, and our president is correct to identify America as the source of all evil in the world and to make a career out of apologizing for her very existence.

If, however, there is a moral and ethical basis for our displacement of native American tribes, and if our westward expansion and settlement are in fact consistent with the laws of nature, nature's God, and the law of nations, then Americans have much to be proud of. 

This latter view certainly would not compel us to believe that Americans were never guilty of evil themselves. But saying that America was wrong here, or there, is certainly a different thing than saying that the entire American experiment is rooted in evil. 

It's one thing to have folks throw trash in the stream on occasion, because the trash can be fished out and the water's purity can be restored. It's quite another thing for the stream to be polluted at its headwaters. If the stream is toxic from its very source, then everyone who drinks from it drinks poison into his soul, and we certainly should not be bottling this water and shipping it overseas to peoples looking to slake their thirst for a model of liberty, freedom, prosperity and security.

So this is a conversation that needs to take place. But based on the reaction to my column of Tuesday, America is not mature enough right now for that robust dialogue to occur. Until it is...
http://www.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147503401

A surprisingly reasonable post, given how retarded the first one was.

[LMNO]

You might need to read it again, in that case.

That post is blindingly stupid.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

yah, this is like saying that if there is no god then there is no reason to be nice to other people.
just because colonists did some shitty thingd and the US did some shitty things doesnt mean there isnt any good ib it. this is a poerfect example of someone only seeing something in black and white instread of various shades of grey.

[LMNO]

Not to mention retrofitting the past... "America is great.  Therefore, everything we have ever done is great.  Even the bad stuff."

[Cain]

America once did a bad thing....therefore it can never be good again!

Just like how without God there can be no morality.  At all.  Ever.

[LMNO]

Matthew 27:25 -- All the people answered, "His blood is on us and on our children!"

[Cain]

I think this quote to the Bible should be tattoed on the heads on the Religious Right:

1 John 2:9-11

Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates a brother or sister is still in the darkness.  Anyone who loves their brother and sister lives in the light, and there is nothing in them to make them stumble.  But anyone who hates a brother or sister is in the darkness and walks around in the darkness. They do not know where they are going, because the darkness has blinded them.

[LMNO]

4 out of 5 born-again fundamentalists think John was a pussy.

[Luna]

4 out of 5 born-again fundamentalists think John was a pussy.

4 out of 5 born-again fundamentalists never read the book in the first place.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Those posts hurt my brain... WTF?