This surprised me (Canadian History)
- Thread starter treide
- Start date
G
Ghey Boy
Guest
The offensive part of that, in my view, is that you imply that these women, however annoying and misguided you think they may be, are rascists (unless I read that very wrong). They may well have been, but to simply assume that they are is an attitude that really stinks. Labelling anyone like that because they dare to speak out on, in this case, special rights for minorities, or any other devicive issues of race or creed (immigration etc etc) is simple minded at best, and imo cowardly, underhand, and a whole lot of other things besides. Such an attitude is a blight on society and very unhealthy for everyone.
WHy the arbitary cut-off point for your generation, and it\'s duty to make reparations for wrong doings to people never met, by people you never met, simply on the basis of skin colour?
So you are not \"Native American\", being a descendant of European immigrants. Do you know from which country your ancestors migrated? Perhaps it was from France, or a Northern European country? If so, do you owe me some kind of debt? I\'m pretty sure that people from these countries, many centuries ago, perpetrated atrocities on people from my country, invading their lands, murdering, enslaving, raping, and stealing from people that neither of us knew.
I think your views on this matter are very misguided, but there are millions that share them, and it is a great shame.
Avelorn
Sven Jonsson
Imagine this you have a goldmine on your land. Suddenly you get a neighbor that puts up a fence on your land and around that goldmine. The neighbor starts mining the gold and get lots and lots of money. So does his/her children and their childrens children while your family gets nothing. The only hope is employment in the goldmine. Is there a debt and how long does it go? Is there a cut off point? Nobody deserves to be borned into wealth or poverty, it just happens.
There is no justice in the distribution of properties all around the world and you will never be able to straighten all the claims out. Some claim that because all economical transactions happens in \"voluntary\" concracts there is justice in that. But that is of course absolute rubbish, as it would only be true if the initial distribution to each and every indivudual was just, which it isn\'t and never will be (and there will still be a discussion if distribution of talent is just lol). The \"native\" americans were robbed of their land, surely, but if they would get it back the underlying principle for justice would be \"finders - keepers\" Meaning if I can make the biggest fence ever around all of U.S. and I was the first human around it would all belong to me and my descendants.
I\'m going to go further. Rights and laws aren\'t written in stone somewhere and that is also true for both positive and negative rights (human rights like education or non intervention). This can easily be shown as they vary in time. Rights come from our way of interacting with each other and our view and thoughts about each other and lots of other mechanisms.
In the same way a stone isn\'t yours just because you pick it up. Because the right of property isn\'t something that is written in the stars. Niether Europeans or the Native americans can \"really\" claim the land as you are just using rules that you have made up. It\'s like forcing someone to a competition that you have made up yourself. The natural continuation to this line of thought might be an anarchistic \"all property is theft\" But that is misunderstanding as theft isn\'t naturally something good or evil. It is just something that we have deemed bad for our society through a set of rules we\'ve made up. The natural continuation would be to choose which way you want the world to look like if you could choose and try real hard to make that happen. Make no mistake that it\'s your vision of the world (or maybe more true, the one you\'ve been socialised into), you can\'t think someone elses thought. Do we want justice and what is justice?
A good start is imagining the theoretical situation that you can choose the society you and your friends and family will be borned in but not the place in it. You might be borned rich or poor, man or woman, black or white... your son/daughter the same. Would you then choose a country with equal distribution? Unequal? Racism? sexism? prostitution?
I know what I would answer.
There is no justice in the distribution of properties all around the world and you will never be able to straighten all the claims out. Some claim that because all economical transactions happens in \"voluntary\" concracts there is justice in that. But that is of course absolute rubbish, as it would only be true if the initial distribution to each and every indivudual was just, which it isn\'t and never will be (and there will still be a discussion if distribution of talent is just lol). The \"native\" americans were robbed of their land, surely, but if they would get it back the underlying principle for justice would be \"finders - keepers\" Meaning if I can make the biggest fence ever around all of U.S. and I was the first human around it would all belong to me and my descendants.
I\'m going to go further. Rights and laws aren\'t written in stone somewhere and that is also true for both positive and negative rights (human rights like education or non intervention). This can easily be shown as they vary in time. Rights come from our way of interacting with each other and our view and thoughts about each other and lots of other mechanisms.
In the same way a stone isn\'t yours just because you pick it up. Because the right of property isn\'t something that is written in the stars. Niether Europeans or the Native americans can \"really\" claim the land as you are just using rules that you have made up. It\'s like forcing someone to a competition that you have made up yourself. The natural continuation to this line of thought might be an anarchistic \"all property is theft\" But that is misunderstanding as theft isn\'t naturally something good or evil. It is just something that we have deemed bad for our society through a set of rules we\'ve made up. The natural continuation would be to choose which way you want the world to look like if you could choose and try real hard to make that happen. Make no mistake that it\'s your vision of the world (or maybe more true, the one you\'ve been socialised into), you can\'t think someone elses thought. Do we want justice and what is justice?
A good start is imagining the theoretical situation that you can choose the society you and your friends and family will be borned in but not the place in it. You might be borned rich or poor, man or woman, black or white... your son/daughter the same. Would you then choose a country with equal distribution? Unequal? Racism? sexism? prostitution?
I know what I would answer.
Fair enough, that makes sense to me!
No Liz, not offended in the slightest. I just think these \'debates\' are very enlightening for me. 99% of the time they are respectful.
And for some odd reason, I tend to think of this crowd here as \'highly educated\' and I not only respect the opinions, but am often swayed greatly by them.
Yup, that is the point I was trying to make to when I said, \"If a culture plays the victim long enough, it will destroy that culture\".
I suppose it could be said that I am white and privledged, and the roles reversed may make me speak a different tune. Maybe so, but like Airhead, I didn\'t have a silver spoon in my mouth when born. I go to work every day, as does my wife, as did my mother, father, grandmother, grandfather...etc. etc. for as far back as I know.
Your country?!? which is?? I\'m not a really knowledgeable in the history of every country on the planet, but most of them have prepatrated atrocities on someone elses country. The question is how long does a group pay for the actions of their anscetors? At what point do we stop blaming each other for past acts, and get on with life?
G
Ghey Boy
Guest
A country with a history of war and invasion going back at least 2000 years, to when Julius Caesar first attempted an invasion. The question (do you owe me something?) was rhetorical though. The point was, as you say, how long should a group pay for the actions of their ancestors? The answer, imo, is 0 seconds. If people were obliged to do this (with regards to crimes / atrocities etc), the world would be a very bad place. I bear no ill will to any native Germans for the actions of the Nazis, to do so would be ludicrous. The same applies to the Native American scenario. Lizcam should not give any credence to the argument.
Ah, but I think that is what she is making the point on. We (the US Government), did do just that, it placed a specific groups of peoples on plots of land and saided something to the effect of this is now your land and you can run it any way that you see fit. Also in the case of Indian casinos, here in Minnesota, the Government pretty much shot themselves in the foot when it comes to collecting any type of tax from the casinos. Now if the government wishes to come back in try to get taxes from the Tribe (and again, here in Minnesota they have tried) the Tribes can vote on the matter, and say Yea or Nay. Now, the people starting a petion to have the Government force the Tribes to pay (as in what I seem to glean from this story) is on the level of most of the U.S. \'s dealings with the Tribes. IE, \"We\'ll cut you a deal, and then when it is advance to us, We\'ll change/renege on the whole thing.\" Boy, if that doesn\'t sound like a Conservative, White, Christian, Smoking, Male deal. Nuthing do!
No Such Agency
New member
It might help if I post a couple of examples of the \"type specimens\" of white conservative male-dom:
Lee Raymond, former Exxon CEO
Dick Cheney, former Halliburton CEO, US Secretary of Defense and current VPOTUS:
Just sayin\'... It\'s a generalization, but that\'s what everybody thinks of.
Thunderhawker
New member
And what, precisely, is wrong with that?
