4 ms·

Are you really sure we as western hemisphere do not own nothing to the eastern or more accurately to people who struggle? I'm no historian but I heard something

by azm1 14y ago

Are you really sure we as western hemisphere do not own nothing to the eastern or more accurately to people who struggle? I'm no historian but I heard something about the wiping out Indians and enslaving African people. Are you really sure you can say that we are independent snowflakes who deserve all things by right and to not actually look where to pay back for our mistakes to improve all Earth life conditions no matter of location and nationhood ? The thing is we have not solved many problems yet, we just postpone them and trying to argue with improvements on technological layer which is relatively shallow on its own. Western culture is for example filled with materialism and definitely not pushing us forward. By reducing the needs and learn about struggle of others beyond our family would help to reduce waste and improve life of others. Both sides win.

JanezStupar 14y ago
Killed people cannot be brought back. Greed is always bad. However you are putting strawmen about. Let me explain. The Indian situation was at least as unfortunate as Jewish situation in ancient Babilon or Gypsy (Roma) situation in ancient Babilon. Or the situation of Amalekites and Midianites. Or the situation of Moors for that matter. It is unfortunate that sometimes two civilizations clash and cannot get to grips about what to do with some piece of land and then the more powerful group goes to tear the weaker group a new one. It is extremely unfortunate however, this issue will not be solved here on HN and it will not be solved by idealism. It is an story of pragmatism in the face of adversity. Kill or be killed, adopt or be left behind. Regarding slavery, this is another great myth. Americans (and Dutch) enslaved barely anybody. The poor gentle africans were more than capable of doing their own savagery by themselves. Africans did their own enslaving and western slave traders merely bought the available goods. Does that make slave trade moral? No. However I really dislike this picture of white man as the most amoral being on the face of the world.
- djtriptych 14y ago
  It's really pathetic that you interpret the modern (and ongoing) economic oppression of the 3rd world to a personal attack on White men. Grow up.
  - JanezStupar 14y ago
    Where and how did I do that? All I am saying is that us Humans are a vicious bunch. I have no illusions that Indians would have slaughtered Europeans if they had the means to do so. If Dutch didn't buy slaves, they would die working for someone else. Was Japanese military and economic oppression merely an attempt to dethrone The White Man(tm) as chairman of hell? What if Mongols had managed to get their act together? And in no way I believe that White Man is Pure and Innocent. But I will also not concede that its all the white mans fault.
    - Klinky 14y ago
      The fact that you can imagine hypothetical situations where the oppressed was the oppressor, or was oppressed by others, doesn't excuse the actions taken by their actual oppressor. "...us Humans are a vicious bunch" is merely a statement, not a valid excuse.
      - berntb 14y ago
        >>us Humans are a vicious bunch" is merely a statement, not a valid excuse. If I understand your position: 1. Occupation, slavery and aggression were parts of most/many historic societies. 2. Just because a behaviour is universal among human societies at the time doesn't stop you from judging a subset of the societies that committed them. (I seldom see condemnation of Arab slavery for sexual purposes etc.) 3. As a bit of extra humour -- the societies you condemn are the ones that did most for finally lifting the standard for human behaviour and implementing real rule of law! (I might add that some societies would, given the opportunities, probably still act in similar ways. No condemnation from you, of course...) Edit: Clarity
        Klinky 14y ago
        I made no mention of any specific societies or countries. I was merely stating that "everyone is doing it" or "they might do it to us, so we should do it to them first" are not really valid excuses.
- TeMPOraL 14y ago
  > Africans did their own enslaving and western slave traders merely bought the available goods. There's no such thing as "merely buing the available goods". The very existence of a will to buy creates incentive to make the goods available. It is always a feedback loop, and you cannot shift blame around it. Both parties are equally responsible for participating.

by azm1 14y ago

JanezStupar 14y ago

Killed people cannot be brought back. Greed is always bad. However you are putting strawmen about. Let me explain. The Indian situation was at least as unfortunate as Jewish situation in ancient Babilon or Gypsy (Roma) situation in ancient Babilon. Or the situation of Amalekites and Midianites. Or the situation of Moors for that matter. It is unfortunate that sometimes two civilizations clash and cannot get to grips about what to do with some piece of land and then the more powerful group goes to tear the weaker group a new one. It is extremely unfortunate however, this issue will not be solved here on HN and it will not be solved by idealism. It is an story of pragmatism in the face of adversity. Kill or be killed, adopt or be left behind. Regarding slavery, this is another great myth. Americans (and Dutch) enslaved barely anybody. The poor gentle africans were more than capable of doing their own savagery by themselves. Africans did their own enslaving and western slave traders merely bought the available goods. Does that make slave trade moral? No. However I really dislike this picture of white man as the most amoral being on the face of the world.

djtriptych 14y ago
It's really pathetic that you interpret the modern (and ongoing) economic oppression of the 3rd world to a personal attack on White men. Grow up.
- JanezStupar 14y ago
  Where and how did I do that? All I am saying is that us Humans are a vicious bunch. I have no illusions that Indians would have slaughtered Europeans if they had the means to do so. If Dutch didn't buy slaves, they would die working for someone else. Was Japanese military and economic oppression merely an attempt to dethrone The White Man(tm) as chairman of hell? What if Mongols had managed to get their act together? And in no way I believe that White Man is Pure and Innocent. But I will also not concede that its all the white mans fault.
  - Klinky 14y ago
    The fact that you can imagine hypothetical situations where the oppressed was the oppressor, or was oppressed by others, doesn't excuse the actions taken by their actual oppressor. "...us Humans are a vicious bunch" is merely a statement, not a valid excuse.
    - berntb 14y ago
      >>us Humans are a vicious bunch" is merely a statement, not a valid excuse. If I understand your position: 1. Occupation, slavery and aggression were parts of most/many historic societies. 2. Just because a behaviour is universal among human societies at the time doesn't stop you from judging a subset of the societies that committed them. (I seldom see condemnation of Arab slavery for sexual purposes etc.) 3. As a bit of extra humour -- the societies you condemn are the ones that did most for finally lifting the standard for human behaviour and implementing real rule of law! (I might add that some societies would, given the opportunities, probably still act in similar ways. No condemnation from you, of course...) Edit: Clarity
      - Klinky 14y ago
        I made no mention of any specific societies or countries. I was merely stating that "everyone is doing it" or "they might do it to us, so we should do it to them first" are not really valid excuses.
TeMPOraL 14y ago
> Africans did their own enslaving and western slave traders merely bought the available goods. There's no such thing as "merely buing the available goods". The very existence of a will to buy creates incentive to make the goods available. It is always a feedback loop, and you cannot shift blame around it. Both parties are equally responsible for participating.