4 ms·

> It's quite possible for the Native Americans to have been savages, and the Europeans to have been savages (with better weapons), and for one group of awful pe

by tfh 17y ago

> It's quite possible for the Native Americans to have been savages, and the Europeans to have been savages (with better weapons), and for one group of awful people to have murdered another group of awful people. I don't understand what do you mean with that. I don't think there's an absolute good or bad. But according to the fact that Europeans are the ones who came to America and slaughtered the Natives, they are the bad ones. The Natives did not something bad by defending themselves. In that situation and if you value human life over material benefit you have to admit "Europeans bad!".

IsaacSchlueter 17y ago
Let's say there are two murderers, Frank and Bob. Frank murders Bob. Is Bob therefor less bad than Frank? What if Bob had murdered 1000 children, and Frank wasn't a murderer until he murdered Bob? Does being a victim cleanse your sins?
- kylemathews 17y ago
  > Does being a victim cleanse your sins? Only if you subscribe to simplistic narratives about how the world works.
- tfh 17y ago
  Being a victim does not cleanse your sins. I'm sure that the Natives Americans were not perfect human beings. No one is. Being killed does not make the Natives good but the Europeans bad. I hope for you that you agree with that last sentence.
  - Tichy 17y ago
    The natives being killed does not make Europeans bad. Doing the killing does. (if we have to speak in such general terms - talking logic here, not actual history).
  - blinks 17y ago
    People aren't "good" or "bad." Actions are.
    - tfh 17y ago
      Agreed.
Retric 17y ago
At least one South American civilization was committing human sacrifices, calling them "good people" before the Spaniards showed up is simplistic. At the same time suggesting the Spaniards were a "good people" simply because they replaced one set of barbaric behaviors with another is also simplistic.
- potatolicious 17y ago
  I think this is the big point people are missing from reading this article: the author is shameless in his bias... the aboriginals were saints! They lived the perfect, tranquil life before the barbaric Europeans came and killed them all! This sort of moral absolutism is hogwash, and has no place in intelligent debate. This is an interesting topic worthy of discussion, but I really do not think this article serves as a good basis for it. Until we can come up with a fair resource that doesn't look at the natives like saints, and Europeans like evil incarnate, I don't think any productive discussion can happen.
  - Tichy 17y ago
    So apart from that one culture doing human sacrifices, what did the others do in your opinion to deserve extermination? I really can't follow the logic here. Why do you even feel the need to justify the murdering of the natives? And how can you think it can be justified? Even if the old ones were murderers (which is probably not true in general, even if you make it so), what about the babies?
    - potatolicious 17y ago
      > "Why do you even feel the need to justify the murdering of the natives?" Wait, what? Thanks for going all "think of the children" on me man, where if I'm not with you I'm for murdering the natives. You are (apparently) representative of the moral absolutism problem I am talking about. I'm not defending the extermination of native American natives. The problem with this article is that it cast native American society as a utopian paradise, and the white European invaders as evil, ruthless, and completely without moral compunction. This sort of historical revisionist "blackwashing" doesn't help anyone - because it has not fairly represented either side. The natives were not utopian societies, nor were they savages deserving of murder. The Europeans were not ruthless monsters, nor were they benevolent conquerors. To represent this situation as black and white is both ignorant and unproductive. By "blackwashing" I mean skewing the facts and injecting calls to emotion where it doesn't belong, to try and make something seem worse - where whitewashing is the opposite (skewing the facts and injecting emotion to make it seems better) [edit] Also, to address specifically why the moral absolutism is a problem: by casting the Europeans as ruthlessly evil, you have removed any deep introspection into why the murder of the natives occurred. You've transformed a complex human situation into a fairy tale - where the bad guys need no explanation. You've also effectively discounted the possibility that bad things can happen for relatively benign (or at least, not overtly evil) goals. Not to mention dehumanization is inherently dangerous - even if the person you're dehumanizing is the "bad guy".
astine 17y ago
One thing to remember is that the slaughter was not wholly one sided. The carib indians for example were known to be cannibals, reputedly attacked Spanish settlements (supposedly for the purposes of consumption) before they themselves were conquered and enslaved. Cortez only managed to conquer Mexico by getting caught up in the wars which were already being waged. The Massacre at Cholula, (depending on whose account you believe) was either instigated by the Tlaxcalans or the Aztecs. In addition, while many native tribes were complicit in the subjugation of their neighbors, the most consistent defense of the human rights of the natives come from religious missionaries who did everything in their power to protect the natives. In the end, there were 'good guys' and 'bad guys' on both sides and you can't judge Europeans as evil based on this. The truth is just more complicated.
- seldo 17y ago
  The reputation of the Caribs as cannibals is almost entirely myth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carib#Cannibalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carib#Cannibalism

by tfh 17y ago

IsaacSchlueter 17y ago

Let's say there are two murderers, Frank and Bob. Frank murders Bob. Is Bob therefor less bad than Frank? What if Bob had murdered 1000 children, and Frank wasn't a murderer until he murdered Bob? Does being a victim cleanse your sins?

kylemathews 17y ago
> Does being a victim cleanse your sins? Only if you subscribe to simplistic narratives about how the world works.
tfh 17y ago
Being a victim does not cleanse your sins. I'm sure that the Natives Americans were not perfect human beings. No one is. Being killed does not make the Natives good but the Europeans bad. I hope for you that you agree with that last sentence.
- Tichy 17y ago
  The natives being killed does not make Europeans bad. Doing the killing does. (if we have to speak in such general terms - talking logic here, not actual history).
- blinks 17y ago
  People aren't "good" or "bad." Actions are.
  - tfh 17y ago
    Agreed.

Retric 17y ago

At least one South American civilization was committing human sacrifices, calling them "good people" before the Spaniards showed up is simplistic. At the same time suggesting the Spaniards were a "good people" simply because they replaced one set of barbaric behaviors with another is also simplistic.

potatolicious 17y ago
I think this is the big point people are missing from reading this article: the author is shameless in his bias... the aboriginals were saints! They lived the perfect, tranquil life before the barbaric Europeans came and killed them all! This sort of moral absolutism is hogwash, and has no place in intelligent debate. This is an interesting topic worthy of discussion, but I really do not think this article serves as a good basis for it. Until we can come up with a fair resource that doesn't look at the natives like saints, and Europeans like evil incarnate, I don't think any productive discussion can happen.
- Tichy 17y ago
  So apart from that one culture doing human sacrifices, what did the others do in your opinion to deserve extermination? I really can't follow the logic here. Why do you even feel the need to justify the murdering of the natives? And how can you think it can be justified? Even if the old ones were murderers (which is probably not true in general, even if you make it so), what about the babies?
  - potatolicious 17y ago
    > "Why do you even feel the need to justify the murdering of the natives?" Wait, what? Thanks for going all "think of the children" on me man, where if I'm not with you I'm for murdering the natives. You are (apparently) representative of the moral absolutism problem I am talking about. I'm not defending the extermination of native American natives. The problem with this article is that it cast native American society as a utopian paradise, and the white European invaders as evil, ruthless, and completely without moral compunction. This sort of historical revisionist "blackwashing" doesn't help anyone - because it has not fairly represented either side. The natives were not utopian societies, nor were they savages deserving of murder. The Europeans were not ruthless monsters, nor were they benevolent conquerors. To represent this situation as black and white is both ignorant and unproductive. By "blackwashing" I mean skewing the facts and injecting calls to emotion where it doesn't belong, to try and make something seem worse - where whitewashing is the opposite (skewing the facts and injecting emotion to make it seems better) [edit] Also, to address specifically why the moral absolutism is a problem: by casting the Europeans as ruthlessly evil, you have removed any deep introspection into why the murder of the natives occurred. You've transformed a complex human situation into a fairy tale - where the bad guys need no explanation. You've also effectively discounted the possibility that bad things can happen for relatively benign (or at least, not overtly evil) goals. Not to mention dehumanization is inherently dangerous - even if the person you're dehumanizing is the "bad guy".

astine 17y ago

One thing to remember is that the slaughter was not wholly one sided. The carib indians for example were known to be cannibals, reputedly attacked Spanish settlements (supposedly for the purposes of consumption) before they themselves were conquered and enslaved. Cortez only managed to conquer Mexico by getting caught up in the wars which were already being waged. The Massacre at Cholula, (depending on whose account you believe) was either instigated by the Tlaxcalans or the Aztecs. In addition, while many native tribes were complicit in the subjugation of their neighbors, the most consistent defense of the human rights of the natives come from religious missionaries who did everything in their power to protect the natives. In the end, there were 'good guys' and 'bad guys' on both sides and you can't judge Europeans as evil based on this. The truth is just more complicated.

seldo 17y ago
The reputation of the Caribs as cannibals is almost entirely myth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carib#Cannibalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carib#Cannibalism