Why does US, Canada, and Mexico own North America?

[213374U]

There are plenty of reasons why relativism doesn't work even as a theory, though. The primary reason being that it contradicts itself. "There is no absolute truth to ethics" is itself an absolute statement. In effect, it's saying "there is absolutely no absolute". That's like saying "this statement is false".

Semantics. Since an ethics system is a set of random concepts invented by somebody, it does not hold any relation to the real world. It's just the imaginary framework needed for an organized society to exist. There can be absolute truths in ethics systems, as polarization is a fundamental element. There can't be universal truths contained within or derived from them, however, because ethics are, much like logic, a human construct.

 

The quest for a truly universal truth is the quest for perfection.

 

 

Of course it is difficult to create an ethic that applies to all people (I don't have one), but it doesn't necessarily follow that an account that could can't exist.

An ethic that applies to all people can easily be fabricated. An ethic that everyone will happily accept and agree upon is, I think, a Utopia. Edited December 5, 2006 by 213374U

[taks]

An ethic that everyone will happily accept and agree upon is, I think, a Utopia.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

by definition, an ethic is a rule that everyone in a certain group/community/organization agrees upon. morals, OTOH, are personal ethics (sort of).

 

taks

[Gromnir]

btw, keep in mind that Gromnir is only talking 'bout hypocriscy of Americans taking a stand 'gainst genocide in other parts of world. there is more than 'nuff reasons for Americans to feel shameful and guilty 'bout current govt. relations with native peoples, but the notion that American policy in 1870 should bar current govt. from trying to prevent genocide elsewhere 'round the globe is one of the more asinine suggestions we seen made.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Azarkon]

Why? Because this grants (the End) you what you want: a "moral realpolitik". Once the system is in place, efforts can be made to keep it, rather than an endless cycle of "you have no authority because you are a hypocrite" self-aggrandizing finger-pointing.

 

Why does the end justify the means? Because there is no way that a realpolitik powerbase will gain supremacy in the current global system without compromising itself "morally".

 

Isn't that precisely the problem? The US (and to a lesser extent, Europe) attempts to justify its position and actions in the world on the basis of morality (spreading democracy, civilization, etc.), its opponents disagree and labels the US (and Europe) as imperialist beneficiaries, thereby creating a moral conundrum in which both sides believe themselves to be righteous, wherein might is the only answer.

 

Morality is thus cast as realpolitik's magic trick. Of course, that's just another way of saying that historically, no people ever believed themselves to be immoral - but then what's the point of discussing morality with regards to foreign policy?

 

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you here.

[deganawida]

Can someone answer this one in the context of our debate?

 

 

alanschu

Also, didn't native tribes wage war against each other for land?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

already did so. already has been stated that Gromnir's peoples would have gladly committed genocide on Crow if we could have managed it.

 

HA! Good Fun!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'll back that up with my people, as it's the same with the Haudenosaunee, who were ancestral enemies with the Huron and Anishinabe (Chippewa/Ojibwa, Ojibwe).

[alanschu]

I'll back that up with my people, as it's the same with the Haudenosaunee, who were ancestral enemies with the Huron and Anishinabe (Chippewa/Ojibwa, Ojibwe).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Sooooo, using Azarkon's perspective, is it not hypocritical for the native americans to demand reparations when they themselves did the same thing?

[deganawida]

I'll back that up with my people, as it's the same with the Haudenosaunee, who were ancestral enemies with the Huron and Anishinabe (Chippewa/Ojibwa, Ojibwe).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Sooooo, using Azarkon's perspective, is it not hypocritical for the native americans to demand reparations when they themselves did the same thing?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, that's the rub, isn't it? See, most politically-active Indians with which I've been associated (NOT all; there are those who want time turned back) have not wanted reparations (akin to "Reparations for Slavery" proposals which have been floating around for the last decade), but have instead wanted the treaties which the United States government signed and ratified (not all were ratified, but at least 2,500 were) followed or renegotiated. This takes the argument from the past (genocide) to the present (legally-binding agreements between two nations which are still in effect today and, unless changed, will be in effect tomorrow). Thus, the argument isn't "You're ancestor's wronged my ancestors!", and is instead, "Our ancestors signed treaties, which were then made law, which grant certain rights and land in perpetuity. You're currently in breach of the law.".

 

In this situation, then, choosing to use American Indians as an example of how America's behavior in the past makes America hypocritical in the present in trying to deal with genocide, occupation, etc., is a unwise, as the American Indian political movement has not focused on acts of the past but on the reality of the present and laws which are in force (though not enforced) today. Azarkon's argument seems to be focused solely upon how past events deprive America from possessing any moral weight, rather than focus upon the present situation and who has moral authority.

 

Does that make any sense? Not sure if I was clear enough.

 

EDIT: Gromnir may have some different insights and experiences in American Indian political movements than myself. Mine mostly comes from a brief period of time when I was affiliated with AIM.

Edited December 5, 2006 by deganawida

[Checkpoint]

As a side note that isn't entirely irrelevant to the context at hand, I'd like to point out that at least northern Latin America was subject to vast epidemics caused by diseases such as smallpox, measles and typhoid. These diseases were completely new to the area and the natives weren't as resistant as the Europeans. This along with the introduction of gunpowder and Spanish/Portuguese determination to "Europeanize" America - and the inevitable friction that caused - I think about 90% of the native population in the area was wiped out.

 

They were replaced with African slave labour.

[Pidesco]

And that's the greatest period in Portugal's history.

[Azarkon]

Azarkon's argument seems to be focused solely upon how past events deprive America from possessing any moral weight, rather than focus upon the present situation and who has moral authority.

 

Pretty much. But it's not so much that America has no moral authority, but that the moral system under which it derives its authority is inherently flawed. For example, we might agree that nations today have an obligation to stop genocidal wars wherever it occurs, irregardless of the past. At the same time, however, it's hypocritical for the US to require that other nations not engage in genocidal wars, when its wealth and position came from doing precisely that (nevermind the fact that it's potentially engaging in one itself - that's another topic altogether). Since both positions are, from their own respective viewpoints, justified, morality becomes irrelevant to the argument. A subjective moral system is worthless for dialectical purposes, since it has no mutually agreed upon basis (as such, the best thing you can do is "agree to disagree").

 

It's difficult to argue my position when the only example I can use is the highly stigmatic subject of genocide, which due to its emotionally charged nature is bound to render any contrarian position assinine.

 

A far better example would be something like conquest of land. If my ancestors took your land two hundred years ago and then claimed it as our own, are you morally unjustified to take it back two hundred years later, simply because the people who invaded your land are now dead and gone? If so, how do you expect anyone to abide by the conditions of this moral system, which simply reduces to the idea that might makes right and that if you can take land and hold it, it subsequently belongs to you?

 

I consider this example highly relevant to current controversies on the world stage. The creation of Israel, for example, is the central issue around which the entire conflict of civilizations between the West and the Middle-East is based. Yet, no Western or Middle-Eastern moralist has ever provided what I would consider an objective moral argument with regards to who is right - the Jews with their ancient claim to Israel, or the Muslims who believe that the land belongs to them because they took it away from the Jews so long ago?

Edited December 5, 2006 by Azarkon

[Cyric]

I really have to wonder at all the above people who make eloquent but ultimately vacuous speeches on justifications for the genocide by US of the American natives.

 

Regardless of your perspective, genocide for any reason, at any point in time is amoral. It is a most reprehensible act deriving from bigotry and bloodthirstiness. Any society which seeks to condone or ratify it is unequivocally corrupt to its core.

 

Alexander the Great, reputedly the greatest conqueror the world has ever witnessed didn't go around annihilating indigenous peoples of the lands he came across on his military campaigns!

 

He conquered Egypt and established the Greco-Egyptian Ptolemaic dynasty from which the legendary Cleopatra descended.

 

He subjugated ancient India in an epic battle. The conquered Indian prince was then brought before him and Alexander asked,

Edited December 6, 2006 by Cyric

[Pidesco]

You mean immoral, not amoral.

 

And you're wrong, anyway.

Edited December 6, 2006 by Pidesco

[213374U]

Alexander the Great, reputedly the greatest conqueror the world has ever witnessed didn't go around annihilating indigenous peoples of the lands he came across on his military campaigns!

He had nobody to replace the locals if he slaughtered them, anyway.

 

 

He conquered Egypt and established the Greco-Egyptian Ptolemaic dynasty from which the legendary Cleopatra descended.

He didn't establish jack. It was his very good friends who, in their greed, turned on each other hoping to keep Alex's legacy alive and whole... under their rule. Ptolemy just happened to get Egypt.

 

 

He established the rule of his conquered territories in such a way that he did not have to kill off the native inhabitants.

And his vision, the work of his life, came down crashing as soon as he expired. Not much of an empire-builder, if you ask me.

 

And yeah, Pidesco's right.

[Pop]

Of course no temporal power was established by Alexander's conquest. In that he's just like any other great conquerer, be it Temuchin or the Vikings. Besides, I'm pretty sure he did commit a purge or two.

 

What he did bring was Hellenistic culture. Hell, they have greek architecture in India. If there was one thing (I'm aware it was a confluence of things) just one thing that allowed the greek epics and Aristotle to survive past the death of Greece, it was Alexander's Conquest.

 

Culturally, Alexander left an epic legacy.

[Walsingham]

While I agree with the sentiment, Cyric, there is the fact that our entire species may well have achieved its dominance through genocide of the neanderthals. Moreover, that every culture that I can think of has practiced it at one time or another. This suggests to me that while it is unarguably repellent could it be necessary? A disquieting thought...

[Atreides]

It'd make quite an interesting basis for a story.

[taks]

necessary then vs. necessary now are two different arguments i think. at some point, we will eventually become one global "community," perhaps as a result of contact with another, extra-solar (i.e. alien), society or perhaps simply through the trend of globalization that is underway. in any event, at that point, conquering within the planet will become a moot point (uh, not mute as many often state), but it may take on planetary form ala star trek, star wars, etc.

 

who knows. we'll all be dead by the time that happens.

 

taks

[Walsingham]

I did a little note-reviewing, and discovered that there seem to be two reasons why people use genocide.

 

1) Because they set out with a war aim of annihilating an enemy, more or less for the pure joy of it. *disparaging*

 

2) In the ancient world they set out with the aim of 'civilised' conquest and are driven to commit genocide as a counter-insurgency measure. i.e. if the conquered people persist in trying to hide fighters in the civil population then they eventually lose both.

 

This second point is interesting, because one finds a rise in guerrilla tactics inversely proportionate to the perceived acceptability of committing genocide. Although it doesn't cut the other way so cleanly. Viz the third reich's attempts in WW2.

 

I also note that Stalin commited what you might call 'culturcide' on the cossacks and some other peoples as a means of pre-emptive counter-insurgency.

 

~~

 

And I should probably reiterate that I'm not in favour of genocide.

[taks]

i think many genocides that are committed purely for the joy are still disguised as providing some benefit to the people being led down that path. hitler is a good example. he was such a good propagandist that he was able to remove the moral reprehension of exterminating jews from the minds of the people he led. the same could be said for stalin, though he used fear to scare his people into believing in him. in general, i'd guess most people agree that such atrocities are reprehensible. it takes some great effort to remove that feeling from a population. charsimatic leaders have, for whatever reason, been able to do this time and time again.

 

taks

[~Di]

People agree that genocide is represensible... and yet nobody really wants to do anything about it. Witness Rwanda and Darfur and Sudan... and the bitterness still felt when something actually was done about the attempted genocide in the Balkans. Having rescued the persecuted Muslims in Kosovo (after ignoring the slaughter in Bosnia and Croatia), we now are in the position of trying to prevent the persecuted from committed their own genocide on those who persecuted them. Perhaps that is where the reticence to get involved stems from, the knowledge that once we "save" one side from the other, we then become permanently responsible for both sides.

 

So the slaughter goes on in far corners of the earth, while we as a species primarily ignore it in favor of typing pompous platitudes about how awful such things are and how hypocritical some folks are, or making stretched attempts to justify and/or glorify our own bloody history.

 

I too have often wondered where the Neanderthal went... and had the prickly sensation that my own ancestors probably had a bit to do with their passing.

[metadigital]

Why? Because this grants (the End) you what you want: a "moral realpolitik". Once the system is in place, efforts can be made to keep it, rather than an endless cycle of "you have no authority because you are a hypocrite" self-aggrandizing finger-pointing.

 

Why does the end justify the means? Because there is no way that a realpolitik powerbase will gain supremacy in the current global system without compromising itself "morally".

Isn't that precisely the problem? The US (and to a lesser extent, Europe) attempts to justify its position and actions in the world on the basis of morality (spreading democracy, civilization, etc.), its opponents disagree and labels the US (and Europe) as imperialist beneficiaries, thereby creating a moral conundrum in which both sides believe themselves to be righteous, wherein might is the only answer.

 

Morality is thus cast as realpolitik's magic trick. Of course, that's just another way of saying that historically, no people ever believed themselves to be immoral - but then what's the point of discussing morality with regards to foreign policy?

 

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you here.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, it depends on the system that is implemented.

 

If one can get a "moral government" (of the world, presumably), then that is not a subjectively moral government, but an objectively moral one.

 

Just projecting the given government onto another peoples would be just playing lip-service, without actually being a moral government.

 

Bear in mind that there needs to be voluntary adoption of the government policies; Liberia, for example, has an identical constitution to the USA and it is a markedly less fair society (warlords with Oxbridge / Ivy League PH.Ds leading armies of children in run-and-gun battles to control the countries rich resources, whilst the civilian populations are raped and tortured and driven from one refuge to the next).

[Calax]

@cyric:

Does that mean that most of the Southern United States now is completly corrupt and immoral because of their desire to see every bit of Arabic/Islamic society put to the torch/turned into a glass parking lot?

[kumquatq3]

@cyric:

Does that mean that most of the Southern United States now is completly corrupt and immoral because of their desire to see every bit of Arabic/Islamic society put to the torch/turned into a glass parking lot?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What? They do?

[Calax]

@cyric:

Does that mean that most of the Southern United States now is completly corrupt and immoral because of their desire to see every bit of Arabic/Islamic society put to the torch/turned into a glass parking lot?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What? They do?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

its a massive generalization but it's true. It's noted that most of the south are die hard Republicans who want to do everything possible to eliminate Arabs... At least that's the feel I get. Most of the deep south is also deeply religious adding to the Genocidal desire.

[Nartwak]

Yes, massive generalizations are true. I see you've gone to the Hades_One school of intellectually lazy rhetoric.