3 ms·

"But there are countless other examples of people being conquered too, all over the world, and not just by Europeans." An example of the relatively rare Tu Quo

"But there are countless other examples of people being conquered too, all over the world, and not just by Europeans." An example of the relatively rare Tu Quoque logical fallacy in the wild! Or maybe you weren't arguing that it was okay because non Europeans did it, in which case it's more of a red herring. "There is no justification needed, other than that's what humans did back then. It was a much more primitive and brutal example of survival of the fittest. And as much as it offends our sensibilities now, it is the very path that leads us to where we find ourselves today." And yet people wrote extensively about their justifications for such behavior back then, and there were those whose sensibilities were offended in the past. For example, this 1550 debate on native captivity and rights, "http://digital.lib.lehigh.edu/trial/justification/newspain/essay/" http://digital.lib.lehigh.edu/trial/justification/newspain/e... Here's more about Las Casas's defense of native rights, "https://www.thoughtco.com/bartolome-de-las-casas-2136332" https://www.thoughtco.com/bartolome-de-las-casas-2136332" If the question could be considered in the 1500's, I see no reason why we can't talk about it now. "We can struggle to be more just and compassionate with each other today, but our ancestors lived in a very different and harsh reality. It's not pretty, but it was a reality for a lot longer than this brief period we're living in now." Compassion and justice aren't some new innovation from this century, but have been a concern of human beings for millennia in a variety of cultures. As well, the idea that we are morally superior to the past, in my personal view, a recipe for moral turpitude, and cultural torpor. It suggests that things are all good now. Anyway, I feel like papering over the past by saying that we were primitive brutes is a little rich, given that that was the very justification used by so many Europeans for enslavement and genocide; that is, that the civilizing influence of their culture was needed.

staplers 8y ago
Refreshing to see another historically educated mind in this thread.
Yetanfou 8y ago
History is rife with debate on the morality of conquest, this probably goes back to the dawn of civilisation. If there is one thing which can be learned from history it is that homo sapiens is a querulous and aggressive species which is more than eager to use might to force its will on others, whether they be other humans or other species. As to whether a given group, tribe, people or nation ends up in the history books as conquerors or conquered depends amongst others on where those moral discussions took them. Those who saw themselves as conquerors ended up conquering others until they themselves were defeated, conquered and sometimes annihilated by other conquerors. One thing is clear though: when two people meet and one of them has a club or sword or gun and is willing to use it that person gets to force his - or possibly her - will on the other. This goes for individuals just as much as it goes for groups, tribes, people or nations. This is a simple statement of fact, not a defence of the ideologies which leads some to pick up arms to conquer. It is also the reason why the history books are full of conquest and why some cultures which are generally seen as 'advanced' succumbed to 'less advanced' cultures.

staplers 8y ago

Refreshing to see another historically educated mind in this thread.

Yetanfou 8y ago

History is rife with debate on the morality of conquest, this probably goes back to the dawn of civilisation. If there is one thing which can be learned from history it is that homo sapiens is a querulous and aggressive species which is more than eager to use might to force its will on others, whether they be other humans or other species. As to whether a given group, tribe, people or nation ends up in the history books as conquerors or conquered depends amongst others on where those moral discussions took them. Those who saw themselves as conquerors ended up conquering others until they themselves were defeated, conquered and sometimes annihilated by other conquerors. One thing is clear though: when two people meet and one of them has a club or sword or gun and is willing to use it that person gets to force his - or possibly her - will on the other. This goes for individuals just as much as it goes for groups, tribes, people or nations. This is a simple statement of fact, not a defence of the ideologies which leads some to pick up arms to conquer. It is also the reason why the history books are full of conquest and why some cultures which are generally seen as 'advanced' succumbed to 'less advanced' cultures.