http://www.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147503229
QuoteIn all the discussions about the European settlement of the New World, one feature has been conspicuously absent: the role that the superstition, savagery and sexual immorality of native Americans played in making them morally disqualified from sovereign control of American soil.
International legal scholars have always recognized that sovereign control of land is legitimately transferred in at least three ways: settlement, purchase, and conquest. Europeans have to this day a legitimate claim on American soil for all three of those reasons.
They established permanent settlements on the land, moving gradually from east to west, while Indian tribes remained relentlessly nomadic.
Much of the early territory in North American that came into possession of the Europeans came into their possession when the land was purchased from local tribes, Peter Minuit's purchase of Manhattan being merely the first.
And the Europeans proved superior in battle, taking possession of contested lands through right of conquest. So in all respects, Europeans gained rightful and legal sovereign control of American soil.
But another factor has rarely been discussed, and that is the moral factor.
In the ancient tradition of the Hebrews, God made it clear to Abraham that the land of Canaan was promised to his descendants. But he told Abraham the transfer of land to his heirs could not happen for 400 years, for one simple reason: "[T]he iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete" (Gen. 15:16).
The Amorites, or Canaanite peoples, practiced one moral abomination after another, whether it was incest, adultery, sexual immorality, homosexuality, bestiality or child sacrifice, and God finally said "Enough!"
By the time he brought the nascent nation of Israel to the borders of the land flowing with milk and honey, he had already been patient with the native tribes for 400 years, waiting for them to come to the place of repentance for their socially and spiritually degrading practices.
His patience was not rewarded, and finally the day came when the sin had reached its full measure. The slop bucket was full, and it was time to empty it out. Israel under Joshua was God's custodian to empty the bucket and start over.
The native American tribes at the time of the European settlement and founding of the United States were, virtually without exception, steeped in the basest forms of superstition, had been guilty of savagery in warfare for hundreds of years, and practiced the most debased forms of sexuality.
Yeah, it's a good thing America was never invaded by superstitious (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puritan#New_England_Puritans), sexual perverts (http://www.time.com/time/2003/franklin/bfwomen.html) who were savage in warfare (http://europeanhistory.about.com/od/warsinnorthamerica/a/pontiacswar.htm).
What a fucking idiot this person is.
Conquest and morality don't contradict each other? News to me.
Jesus. :lulz:
Who will tell the Chinook they are not real Native Americans? For apparently:
QuoteIndian tribes remained relentlessly nomadic.
Yeah, all of them. IN YOUR FACE, historical research!
Quote from: Cain on February 09, 2011, 06:12:50 PM
Who will tell the Chinook they are not real Native Americans? For apparently:
QuoteIndian tribes remained relentlessly nomadic.
Yeah, all of them. IN YOUR FACE, historical research!
Yeah, and cliff dwellings were just summer homes.
Quote from: Cain on February 09, 2011, 06:12:50 PM
Who will tell the Chinook they are not real Native Americans? For apparently:
QuoteIndian tribes remained relentlessly nomadic.
Yeah, all of them. IN YOUR FACE, historical research!
"Relentlessly nomadic"?
IMA CHARGIN' MAH PONY! :lulz:
By this guy's argument, BTW, most of the republican leadership is unfit to govern.
My objections to this piece are actually longer than the piece itself. It's that bad.
Also, check out the idiots cheering the writer along, in the comments below.
Quote from: Cain on February 09, 2011, 06:12:50 PM
Who will tell the Chinook they are not real Native Americans? For apparently:
QuoteIndian tribes remained relentlessly nomadic.
Yeah, all of them. IN YOUR FACE, historical research!
Aztecs, Incans, Mayans....
Oh wait, that wasn't the US. So it's ok to ask the Mexicans and Peruvians to take it a step further and go back to Spain. I get the game now.
Er... weren't nomadic tribes the exception rather than rule, even in America/Canada? :?
Quote from: Requia ☣ on February 09, 2011, 06:20:05 PM
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.
The Iroquois were fairly settled, as were their neighboring tribes, if I recall.
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 09, 2011, 06:24:57 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on February 09, 2011, 06:20:05 PM
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.
Quote from: Cain on February 09, 2011, 06:15:13 PM
My objections to this piece are actually longer than the piece itself. It's that bad.
Also, check out the idiots cheering the writer along, in the comments below.
I agree.
The guy is a fundie and an idiot. Something which occurs together with great frequency unfortunately.
Well, by his own logic the Europeans should have had to wait for at least 400 years, no?
It just goes to show that God can be used to justify any act, no matter how depraved and stupid.
Quote from: comment posted to the OP article
This is a parody of the stupidity of the evangelical right, correct? Nobody is actually this ignorant.
:lulz:
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on February 10, 2011, 12:15:07 AM
Quote from: comment posted to the OP article
This is a parody of the stupidity of the evangelical right, correct? Nobody is actually this ignorant.
:lulz:
Poes law never fails. I still hear people tell me that Glenn Beck is actually a very stealthy troll.
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on February 10, 2011, 05:07:21 AM
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on February 10, 2011, 12:15:07 AM
Quote from: comment posted to the OP article
This is a parody of the stupidity of the evangelical right, correct? Nobody is actually this ignorant.
:lulz:
Poes law never fails. I still hear people tell me that Glenn Beck is actually a very stealthy troll.
I don't think that's the case, but if it came out that it were, I wouldn't be terribly surprised. Hell, maybe I should get a show on Fox News and spout some crazy shit. Seems pretty lucrative..........
..................maybe we all should, the whole of PD............................
(while putting out actual thought provoking stuff, of course)
Quote from: Doktor Blight on February 10, 2011, 05:19:34 AM
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on February 10, 2011, 05:07:21 AM
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on February 10, 2011, 12:15:07 AM
Quote from: comment posted to the OP article
This is a parody of the stupidity of the evangelical right, correct? Nobody is actually this ignorant.
:lulz:
Poes law never fails. I still hear people tell me that Glenn Beck is actually a very stealthy troll.
I don't think that's the case, but if it came out that it were, I wouldn't be terribly surprised. Hell, maybe I should get a show on Fox News and spout some crazy shit. Seems pretty lucrative..........
..................maybe we all should, the whole of PD............................
(while putting out actual thought provoking stuff, of course)
The funny thing is apparently he does troll the establishment at Fox pretty often. They just dont have the balls to do anything about it because hes their prized money-cow.
Ann Coulter also gets poes law pretty hard. Im still not sold that she completely believes the bullshit she spouts.
How sad would it be if it turned out that the face of American conservatism was just all one big troll to get the yokels whipped up enough to give them money?
Ah, fuck, that's the case even if they believe half the shit they talk about.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on February 10, 2011, 05:37:42 AM
How sad would it be if it turned out that the face of American conservatism was just all one big troll to get the yokels whipped up enough to give them money?
Imagine how those yokels would react if they revealed that they were trolls.
Picture it: Pat Robertson coming out of the closet, Bill Oreilly confessing his atheism(lol tidez), Glenn Beck praising the works of Karl Marx.
And all of it coordinated to happen on the same day. People would short-circuit.
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on February 10, 2011, 06:45:05 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on February 10, 2011, 05:37:42 AM
How sad would it be if it turned out that the face of American conservatism was just all one big troll to get the yokels whipped up enough to give them money?
Imagine how those yokels would react if they revealed that they were trolls.
Picture it: Pat Robertson coming out of the closet, Bill Oreilly confessing his atheism(lol tidez), Glenn Beck praising the works of Karl Marx.
And all of it coordinated to happen on the same day. People would short-circuit.
I WANT THIS TO HAPPEN. I WANT TO SEE IT. ON TV, BECAUSE CONSERVATIVES ARE A LITTLE SCARCE HERE UNLESS THEY'RE WEARING MITRES.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on February 09, 2011, 06:07:57 PM
Conquest and morality don't contradict each other?
The Victorians didn't think so. And look what happened to them! (uh, nothing).
You know, I've possibly voiced this sentiment before, but the idea of anyone "deserving" anything in politics really rubs me the wrong way. Deserve? This isn't a fucking competition. No-one is grading you and handing out points and awards afterwards. There is no way to "justify" your rule, morally or from any other pathetic
a priori models. People rule because they have both the capacity and the will to. If I conquer someone else, it was because I was smarter, or had the bigger army, had more resistance to diseases, more money, better technology etc. End of story. No-one deserves anything, except possibly preachers deserving a smack in the mouth for their moralizing nonsense and false pieties. That I might concede to.
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on February 10, 2011, 05:24:13 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on February 10, 2011, 05:19:34 AM
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on February 10, 2011, 05:07:21 AM
Quote from: ☄ · · · N E T · · · ☄ on February 10, 2011, 12:15:07 AM
Quote from: comment posted to the OP article
This is a parody of the stupidity of the evangelical right, correct? Nobody is actually this ignorant.
:lulz:
Poes law never fails. I still hear people tell me that Glenn Beck is actually a very stealthy troll.
I don't think that's the case, but if it came out that it were, I wouldn't be terribly surprised. Hell, maybe I should get a show on Fox News and spout some crazy shit. Seems pretty lucrative..........
..................maybe we all should, the whole of PD............................
(while putting out actual thought provoking stuff, of course)
The funny thing is apparently he does troll the establishment at Fox pretty often. They just dont have the balls to do anything about it because hes their prized money-cow.
Ann Coulter also gets poes law pretty hard. Im still not sold that she completely believes the bullshit she spouts.
...I used to be similarly skeptical about folks like Mann Coulter and Michelle MalkinMeCrazy, until I started watching documentaries on politicians and talking bobbleheads...that sort of taught me that yeah, they usually do...
I don't think Malkin believes what she writes.
Mainly because I don't think she writes it, I think her Full Metal Wingnut Husband does. He's incredibly smart, a Rhodes Scholar no less, and a committed conservative who works for the RAND Corporation, who profit immensely from the military-industrial complex and the various problems it causes.
Quote from: Cain on February 10, 2011, 04:30:08 PM
I don't think Malkin believes what she writes.
Mainly because I don't think she writes it, I think her Full Metal Wingnut Husband does. He's incredibly smart, a Rhodes Scholar no less, and a committed conservative who works for the RAND Corporation, who profit immensely from the military-industrial complex and the various problems it causes.
I've always thought she had this deer in the headlights look at times when she was being interviewed and I used to think it was because she just didn't have the conviction behind what she said, but if she isn't writing it, just memorizing then that makes much more sense.
Yeah. I mean, to some degree, I am like that, I am far better in writing than I am in person, but I remember someone once making quite a convincing case for Jesse Malkin being the author or co-author of many of the pieces on Malkin's site (I believe he is disabled and so works from home, which would give him the time to devote to helping her with the blog, when not doing research for RAND).
Quote from: Requia ☣ on February 09, 2011, 06:35:31 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 09, 2011, 06:24:57 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on February 09, 2011, 06:20:05 PM
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.
Historically, the right of conquest did come with certain caveats concerning humane treatment of the civilian population, in theory at least. Vitoria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_de_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.
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
GOD WANTED US TO KILL ALL THE NATIVES! IT WAS PART OF HIS ULTIMATE PLAN!
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 15, 2011, 03:09:51 PM
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.
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 15, 2011, 03:09:51 PM
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.
You might need to read it again, in that case.
That post is blindingly stupid.
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.
Not to mention retrofitting the past... "America is great. Therefore, everything we have ever done is great. Even the bad stuff."
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.
Matthew 27:25 -- All the people answered, "His blood is on us and on our children!"
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.
4 out of 5 born-again fundamentalists think John was a pussy.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on February 17, 2011, 02:32:13 PM
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.
Those posts hurt my brain... WTF?