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

[thepixiesrock]

Oh, and by "hope you enjoy" I mean "hope you don't enjoy"

[Dark_Raven]

this thread.

[Azarkon]

Fact of the matter is that power talks and might makes right. What liberals have concoted in the Western moral consciousness - ie indigenous right to land, etc. - are justifications ex post facto - much as any people in the ancient days would assume their own rights to the land of their dwelling, except on a larger scale and applied "universally." The truth is that the West, and indeed any powerful civilization/empire, will do what is in its current best interest. For a nation that has already established its preeminence, that means keeping the status quo - and that means moral justifications against anything that might threaten it. For example, other countries that want to rise to superpower status in a similar fashion (that is - through imperialism and conquest). Just the same, for any nation that is not currently in a position of preeminence, the only real choice is to change the status quo - either economically (China, Russia) or militarily (Iran, NK, etc.) More often than not, this requires breaking with the rules set by the currently ascendant powers, as those rules are bound - necessarily so - to preserve their own interests.

 

The history of the world is writ in blood and is in no way "fair." Most people recognize this. What people no longer recognize is that the same rules that governed men of old govern us now, and that nothing essential has changed except the name of the victor and the methods he employ to control the losers. Yesterday it was outright imperialism in the form of the European Empire. That method became obsolete when Europe collapsed under WW2. Today it's American neo-imperialism in the form of economic control, corporatism, and the "subtle" hand of political influence. Tomorrow it'll be something different, but changes in ideology and methodology do not change the underlying fact, which is that if you're weak, prepare to be exploited.

 

It's sheer hypocrisy to deny other nations the right to do as the West did in its ascendance (conquest and imperialism), but that's the compromise life gives ya - either we control the world or we are controlled by it. The neocons, to which much of the current administration's policies can be attributed, identified correctly the American Problem: how do you make the 21st century a New American Century as opposed to, say, a Chinese Century, an Indian Century, or doggone it a Multi-polar Century? It's better to control history, they reasoned, than to be controlled by it - and that's what got us to where we are now.

Edited December 5, 2006 by Azarkon

[Gromnir]

"It's sheer hypocrisy to deny other nations the right to do as the West did in its ascendance (conquest and imperialism), but that's the compromise life gives ya - either we control the world or we are controlled by it."

 

well now here is where we disagree. is it hypocrisy for US to impose morality on others it did not observe as it rose to ascendency? perhaps, but Gromnir weren't alive back when the US were committing genocide. like it or not, the US has power to influence on a global scale, and if we simply allow bad things to happen the world over simply 'cause some old dead white guys did similar things 100 years ago or for fear of being called hypocrites, then we would be something far, far worse.

 

maybe some of you has watched too much "star trek" than is good for you... prime directive is bunk.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Jorian Drake]

I hope you enhjoy being reported.  Harrasment is against forum rules.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't even count how many times I reported you.

 

[Cyric]

So tell me again, why is North America... specifically the territory now known as the USA... being singled out for criticism and contempt here? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

The human mind has a proclivity to make association by proximity.

 

This is just one contempory example. Others are Australia and New Zealand and the current Israeli occupation of Palestine and only a mere decade ago, Apartheid.

[Cyric]

The history of the world is writ in blood and is in no way "fair."  Most people recognize this.  What people no longer recognize is that the same rules that governed men of old govern us now, and that nothing essential has changed except the name of the victor and the methods he employ to control the losers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well put, this same drama has unfolded throughout all ages of human history.

 

Yesterday it was outright imperialism in the form of the European Empire.  That method became obsolete when Europe collapsed under WW2.  Today it's American neo-imperialism in the form of economic control, corporatism, and the "subtle" hand of political influence.  Tomorrow it'll be something different...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Nothing is as inevitable as change.

 

...but changes in ideology and methodology do not change the underlying fact, which is that if you're weak, prepare to be exploited.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It would appear to be so but humans are limited in their perception in part due to our short life spans. I would argue there is another path.

 

What is it about human nature that has compelled us for so long to follow this one path? For how much longer is this going to be the case?

 

 

... that's the compromise life gives ya - either we control the world or we are controlled by it. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No one super power/empire has held onto dominion of the earth indefinitely. It's like a baton that gets passed from one person to another at different times. In acquiring it they crush other contenders.

 

A vicious cycle.

 

One that has a long term cumulative and detrimental effect on the entire human race. Echoing down generation upon generation.

 

Sometimes I think that as a race, humans are being tested to see if we can coexist harmoniously.

If certain tales are to be believed at one time we did, but it didn't suit a certain some one / someone's.

 

This constant and millennia old infighting in a way reminds me of a certain tale from NWN; you know the one with the elves and the dwarves.

[Azarkon]

well now here is where we disagree. is it hypocrisy for US to impose morality on others it did not observe as it rose to ascendency? perhaps, but Gromnir weren't alive back when the US were committing genocide. like it or not, the US has power to influence on a global scale, and if we simply allow bad things to happen the world over simply 'cause some old dead white guys did similar things 100 years ago or for fear of being called hypocrites, then we would be something far, far worse.

 

It's still hypocritical. If I invaded my neighbor's house and kicked his family out on the streets, and then decided that my children has the right to that house and that it's evil for my neighbor's children to take it back because kicking neighbors out of houses is no longer moral under my watch, I can see why his children would get seriously pissed for being forced to live on the streets for something I did a generation ago. Doesn't mean that my children are wrong to defend the house if attacked, but my moral justification just got alot weaker.

 

Sure, I can argue that my children aren't responsible for my sins, but if they benefit as a result, while others suffer for the same reason - what can I say about my morality? That might, in one life time, makes right for all eternity? Clearly this isn't going to fly, so what we actually get is, indeed, a viscious cycle of people getting kicked out of houses, and a depreciation of moral values.

 

What is it about human nature that has compelled us for so long to follow this one path? For how much longer is this going to be the case?

 

Some argue that it's the basic instinct within every living organism.

 

Sometimes I think that as a race, humans are being tested to see if we can coexist harmoniously.

 

Nah. Nature isn't so righteous. Whether we coexist harmoniously with each other, wipe the other out, or are mutually wiped out - doesn't really matter. If every human being died tomorrow, the world would still go on.

 

The choice, if it exists at all, lies with man.

[Gromnir]

"It's still hypocritical. "

 

not. again. Gromnir didn't ccmmit no genocide. we don't know any current US voters who has. in fact, Gromnir is Oglala AND American... spin however you want, but it sure ain't hypocritical of Gromnir to be demanding a no-genocide stance.

 

 

"Sure, I can argue that my children aren't responsible for my sins,"

 

and you would be correct if you did so. maybe you feel bad for what your father ofr grandfather did, and maybe you wanna make it right for those people your grandfather wronged, but the day they start sending the children and grandchildren of war criminals to prison for the sins of their relatives is the day you may have a point.

 

btw, most folks we know is not descended from indigenous peoples, but quite a few is having had relatives who only came to USA in 1900s or later. how could it be hypocritical for them to demand that USA fight genocide abroad?

 

USA is a nation of people.

 

again, maybe the guilt of Americans for what their dead and buried relatives did ain't such a bad thing, but there sure ain't no hypocritical stance resulting from Americans who fight 'gainst oppression and genocide abroad. not even close.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Azarkon]

and you would be correct if you did so. maybe you feel bad for what your father ofr grandfather did, and maybe you wanna make it right for those people your grandfather wronged, but the day they start sending the children and grandchildren of war criminals to prison for the sins of their relatives is the day you may have a point.

 

Hypocrisy, in this case, does not lie with the individuals, but with the nation. A nation is not absolved of guilt merely because a generation passes for its citizens. I'm not sure it ever is.

 

I do not believe that a nation, from the perspective of morality, is simply a group of living individuals. Such a view ignores history, and in the process fails to explain why two groups vying for supremacy can, simultaneously, be justified. As such, it fails to explain the basic underlying psychology behind why many people feel justified in taking another's land, even while the possessors of said land feel justified in defending it.

 

In essence, I don't think the world operates by a realistic moral system. A system of morality that assumes innocence by birth, and yet acknowledges the fact that the actions of one generation echo through all of history, is inherently unrealistic. You cannot expect people to operate by the rules of such a system, because its rational application specifies that to gain an advantage, all one has to do is commit crimes and maintain them for one generation's time.

 

In fact, that's exactly what happens, but such a stance is clearly immoral and defeats the point of having moral safeguards in the first place. It's no wonder that the Western mind is, today, more unprepared than ever to face reality.

Edited December 5, 2006 by Azarkon

[kumquatq3]

and you would be correct if you did so. maybe you feel bad for what your father ofr grandfather did, and maybe you wanna make it right for those people your grandfather wronged, but the day they start sending the children and grandchildren of war criminals to prison for the sins of their relatives is the day you may have a point.

 

Hypocrisy, in this case, does not lie with the individuals, but with the nation. A nation is not absolved of guilt merely because a generation passes for its citizens. I'm not sure it ever is.

 

Absolved of shame? No

 

Guilt? Yes. You can't hold individuals that did not participate responsible. So they are no more guilty as a collective. To think otherwise only creates other negative situations

[Azarkon]

If the criminals' descendants are not accountable, then who is? God? Nature? History?

 

You end up in a moral impasse - clearly a crime has been committed, but no justice can ever be done. A moral system that espouses such scenarios as necessary conditions is inherently problematic. It encourages its own violation, as people feel grievances that they cannot address but by comitting more crimes.

 

As such, I tend to see the nation as a broader and more historical entity than a collective of individuals; this view is more on par with what is reflected in reality, as people, when rationalizing their choices, tend not to talk about nations as groups of individuals but as historical entities.

[Gromnir]

"Hypocrisy, in this case, does not lie with the individuals, but with the nation. A nation is not absolved of guilt merely because a generation passes for its citizens. I'm not sure it ever is."

 

a "nation" is simply an idea... a fiction that lots of people willingly share. Gromnir is an American. gonna hold Gromnir responsible for genocide of indigenous peoples? no? a nation is its people.

 

should American's feel guilty? is debatable, but there ain't no hypocrisy, no matter how you try to twist definition.

 

"If the criminals' descendants are not accountable, then who is? God? Nature? History?"

 

that is asinine reasoning. hypo: Joe Smith is a mass murderer. he gets away with murder and then dies quiet and peaceful of old age. azarkon then wants to hold great grandchildren of Joe Smith responsible, 'cause if not the grandchildren, then who, right?

 

bah.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited December 5, 2006 by Gromnir

[Azarkon]

Hypocrisy is the condition of being guilty of an action, thought, or attitude and yet arguing for the opposite among others. If you believe that Americans can be guilty, then they certainly can also be hypocritical.

Edited December 5, 2006 by Azarkon

[Azarkon]

that is asinine reasoning. hypo: Joe Smith is a mass murderer. he gets away with murder and then dies quiet and peaceful of old age. azarkon then wants to hold great grandchildren of Joe Smith responsible, 'cause if not the grandchildren, then who, right?

 

bah.

 

Does Joe's grandsons reap the benefits of Joe's murders? If so, then the same moral impasse is reached.

 

Why should they benefit from his crimes and yet not be held accountable?

[Weiser_Cain]

Might makes right, kids but in this case you have an out see America, Canada and (to some extent) Mexico are democracies. That means under optimal circumstances you get a say in how things run. So instead of complaining about how the world works get off your butt and do something about it

[Gromnir]

Hypocrisy is the condition of being guilty of an action, thought, or attitude and yet arguing for the opposite among others.  If you believe that Americans can be guilty, then they certainly can also be hypocritical.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

see a grimy homeless guy begging on corner and some people "feel" guilty for not being poor. people "feel" guilty that their brother or sister ended up in prison, and they ended up as a doctor or lawyer. people "feel" guilty for all kinds o' things that often ain't their fault.

 

 

"Why should they benefit from his crimes and yet not be held accountable?"

 

again, how far you wanna take this? a thief put his kids through college with money he stole from peoples. you want the great grand children of the thief to pay reparations?

nuts.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited December 5, 2006 by Gromnir

[Arkan]

Why should they benefit from his crimes and yet not be held accountable?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Logical?

Edited December 5, 2006 by Arkan

[kumquatq3]

If the criminals' descendants are not accountable, then who is? God? Nature? History?

 

Those that committed the crimes.

 

The only moral impasse occurs when you use your logic, because all nations on the earth would be guilty of something despicable. What happens then?

[Azarkon]

see a grimy homeless guy begging on corner and some people "feel" guilty for not being poor.  people "feel" guilty that their brother or sister ended up in prison, and they ended up as a doctor or lawyer.  people "feel" guilty for all kinds o' things that often ain't their fault.

 

HA! Good Fun!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Fair enough, I misinterpreted you. Let's go back to the argument of whether their nation is guilty, then.

[Azarkon]

again, how far you wanna take this? a thief put his kids through college with money he stole from peoples. you want the great grand children of the thief to pay reparations?

nuts.

 

Not necessarily, but if they did not, then the victims' great grand children are justified in doing the same thing. That's why the system of morality under which we operate essentially reduces to "might makes right."

 

If a moral system cannot explain the hypocrisy of nations, then I could hardly call it a realistic system under which to make correct rational decisions.

[Azarkon]

The only moral impasse occurs when you use your logic, because all nations on the earth would be guilty of something despicable. What happens then?

 

Acknowledgement, regret, and thereby progress?

 

Better than the alternative.

[kumquatq3]

Not necessarily, but if they did not, then the victims' great grand children are justified in doing the same thing.  That's why the system of morality under which we operate essentially reduces to "might makes right."

 

No, because that murder will be tried by the courts. It ends the horrible cycle of violence you are suggesting.

[kumquatq3]

The only moral impasse occurs when you use your logic, because all nations on the earth would be guilty of something despicable. What happens then?

 

Acknowledgement, regret, and thereby progress?

 

Better than the alternative.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's shame, as I said.

 

However, that's not guilt.

 

and I agree it's better than the alternative

[Azarkon]

Not necessarily, but if they did not, then the victims' great grand children are justified in doing the same thing.  That's why the system of morality under which we operate essentially reduces to "might makes right."

 

No, because that murder will be tried by the courts. It ends the horrible cycle of violence you are suggesting.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So who runs the court of nations?

 

Again, might makes right.

Edited December 5, 2006 by Azarkon