3 ms·

It's less 'invalid' than a slippery slope (though I appreciate your counterargument that there are many axes to measure on). For example, it was expedient for J

It's less 'invalid' than a slippery slope (though I appreciate your counterargument that there are many axes to measure on). For example, it was expedient for Jefferson's government to present the original inhabitants as "merciless savages" since demonizing the people you are forcibly displacing and exterminating is easier to explain away. "Merciless savage" is not some sort of objective comparison of social development, it's a simple denial of common humanity, which seems to always lead to terrible things. Ironically of course the early US was "a culture that encourages slavery" (as were many Native American groups, but never on the same scale).

tomp 8y ago
Oh, yeah, I completely agree that the context makes this more complicated and morally dubious... It's just that these days, people seem to be more opposed to the phrasing of something, as opposed to its actual meaning (or the actions that follow). I definitely think that even if we can all agree that some people are "savages" and their cultures are less worthy in every dimension than ours, this still doesn't give us the right (or excuse) to kill/murder/oppress them.
- blacksmith_tb 8y ago
  I imagine it would be hard to find a society that is "less worthy in every dimension" than another (and I'd be especially wary of making that comparison with your own society and another). That strikes me as close to the viewpoint Jefferson was espousing, and while I wouldn't suggest romanticizing Native American cultures (also popular, in other circles), they clearly had (and still have) their strengths and weaknesses. So I doubt there could (or should) be any kind of agreement on who are "savages" - in part because that seems to be a much more loaded value judgement than bland but less-loaded glosses like "simpler societies" - plus it's not clear what they're being found wanting for, failing to produce their own Industrial Revolution? Not developing modern medicine? Not writing novels or symphonies? Those are good things, but hardly all that humans are capable of.

tomp 8y ago

Oh, yeah, I completely agree that the context makes this more complicated and morally dubious... It's just that these days, people seem to be more opposed to the phrasing of something, as opposed to its actual meaning (or the actions that follow). I definitely think that even if we can all agree that some people are "savages" and their cultures are less worthy in every dimension than ours, this still doesn't give us the right (or excuse) to kill/murder/oppress them.

blacksmith_tb 8y ago
I imagine it would be hard to find a society that is "less worthy in every dimension" than another (and I'd be especially wary of making that comparison with your own society and another). That strikes me as close to the viewpoint Jefferson was espousing, and while I wouldn't suggest romanticizing Native American cultures (also popular, in other circles), they clearly had (and still have) their strengths and weaknesses. So I doubt there could (or should) be any kind of agreement on who are "savages" - in part because that seems to be a much more loaded value judgement than bland but less-loaded glosses like "simpler societies" - plus it's not clear what they're being found wanting for, failing to produce their own Industrial Revolution? Not developing modern medicine? Not writing novels or symphonies? Those are good things, but hardly all that humans are capable of.