4 ms·

I'm sympathetic to the plight of the native American, though this article is poor, but no, I would not. It's an unfortunate but necessary part of human progress

I'm sympathetic to the plight of the native American, though this article is poor, but no, I would not. It's an unfortunate but necessary part of human progress. It's no worse than the Romans, or Gauls, or Saxons, etc. By that logic you'd have to keep waving your wand until we were all back on the Savannah tossing spears at antelopes.

eries 17y ago
I think the most interesting part of Guns, Germs and Steel was the assertion that violence is not an aberrant condition for humans. In other words, violence is not a disease, it's standard operating procedure. However, it's normal only under certain conditions. So to prevent violence, you need to work on preventing those conditions.
Quarrelsome 17y ago
I wouldn't say it was necessary. But it happened and that history wasn't ours. We only get to influence things that are happening now.
arcadeparade 17y ago
>It's no worse than the Romans, or Gauls, or Saxons, etc. Or the Nazis? If they had won WW2 I'm sure some people in Germany today would be calling the Holocaust "an unfortunate but necessary part of human progress" and would tell us all about the backwardness of Jewish culture, I'm sure while also being "sympathetic to the plight" of those victims too. That doesn't mean that one group of people have the right to wipe out another culture to benefit their own, no matter what the consequences are. I'm really shocked by some of the comments here.
- bokonist 17y ago
  What's your answer to my question?
  - arcadeparade 17y ago
    It's not a sensible question so I can't answer it. I just dont think that what happened to the Native Americans was right, it was genocide, and anything positive that came out of it doesnt excuse it.
    - bokonist 17y ago
      Let's try a similar, more realistic question. It's 2050. The U.S. has run out of oil, it only has enough to run farm equipment and food shipment trucks for another year. There is hope of converting everything to nuclear/electric power, but that will take a decade. In the meantime, the entire population, including your friends and family, face hunger or starvation. Nigeria and Venezuela have oil, but refuse to sell it at any price. The U.S. government is contemplating war to seize the oil. Do you support the war?
      - arcadeparade 17y ago
        Why dont they want to sell it? And how does that scenario compare to the invasion of the United States in the 1500s? It wasnt invaded to save the population of Europe.
        bokonist 17y ago
        Americans have no goods that are as valuable to them as oil.
        arcadeparade 17y ago
        Ok, well let's compare that with a real life situation. Right now there are thousands of people dying from easily preventable diseases every day in Africa, which could be cured for a few cents each. American pharmaceutical companies have this medicine, and they are operating in one of the most profitable industries that have ever existed. Africans have no goods that are as valuable to them as medicine. Should African countries invade America to get this medicine?

eries 17y ago

I think the most interesting part of Guns, Germs and Steel was the assertion that violence is not an aberrant condition for humans. In other words, violence is not a disease, it's standard operating procedure. However, it's normal only under certain conditions. So to prevent violence, you need to work on preventing those conditions.

Quarrelsome 17y ago

I wouldn't say it was necessary. But it happened and that history wasn't ours. We only get to influence things that are happening now.

arcadeparade 17y ago

>It's no worse than the Romans, or Gauls, or Saxons, etc. Or the Nazis? If they had won WW2 I'm sure some people in Germany today would be calling the Holocaust "an unfortunate but necessary part of human progress" and would tell us all about the backwardness of Jewish culture, I'm sure while also being "sympathetic to the plight" of those victims too. That doesn't mean that one group of people have the right to wipe out another culture to benefit their own, no matter what the consequences are. I'm really shocked by some of the comments here.

bokonist 17y ago
What's your answer to my question?
- arcadeparade 17y ago
  It's not a sensible question so I can't answer it. I just dont think that what happened to the Native Americans was right, it was genocide, and anything positive that came out of it doesnt excuse it.
  - bokonist 17y ago
    Let's try a similar, more realistic question. It's 2050. The U.S. has run out of oil, it only has enough to run farm equipment and food shipment trucks for another year. There is hope of converting everything to nuclear/electric power, but that will take a decade. In the meantime, the entire population, including your friends and family, face hunger or starvation. Nigeria and Venezuela have oil, but refuse to sell it at any price. The U.S. government is contemplating war to seize the oil. Do you support the war?
    - arcadeparade 17y ago
      Why dont they want to sell it? And how does that scenario compare to the invasion of the United States in the 1500s? It wasnt invaded to save the population of Europe.
      - bokonist 17y ago
        Americans have no goods that are as valuable to them as oil.
        arcadeparade 17y ago
        Ok, well let's compare that with a real life situation. Right now there are thousands of people dying from easily preventable diseases every day in Africa, which could be cured for a few cents each. American pharmaceutical companies have this medicine, and they are operating in one of the most profitable industries that have ever existed. Africans have no goods that are as valuable to them as medicine. Should African countries invade America to get this medicine?