5 ms·

So presumably, if some foreign power invaded the US next week, violently exterminated most of the population, and herded the survivors into a few tracts of land

So presumably, if some foreign power invaded the US next week, violently exterminated most of the population, and herded the survivors into a few tracts of land, you would be fine with that? After all, land changes hands continuously.

b6 12y ago
Not at all. Nor am I "fine with" what happened to the natives. All I'm asking is, would it be any major abberration, considering human history? Or would it just be: after atrocious violence and savagery, land briefly under the control of vague human entity X now seems to be under the control of vague human entity Y, episode #37,093,840?
- afarrell 12y ago
  It would not be. And all of those instances make Robert Nozick's arguments about the sanctity of property rights as a first principle laughable on every continent. I've yet to find a another debate to which this is relevant. Well, except perhaps the debate over that native american reservation that the federal government is currently seizing to hand over to a coal mining company.
- atlantic 12y ago
  Violence and war are not unusual historically. But the speed and thoroughness with which a whole continent was cleared of its native inhabitants, and the survivors were subject to all kinds of institutionalized abuse until their culture and traditions were erased, is certainly exceptional, and in recent history only compares in severity with what happened to the aboriginals in Australia. Moreover, if there was official recognition of what really happened, even now much could be done to redress the original injustice and give these people some closure. Instead, schoolchildren are taught a sanitized version of American history which really adds insult to injury, from the point of view of the surviving natives.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - Terr_ 12y ago
    > But the speed and thoroughness [...] is certainly exceptional So? In a day, a modern celebrity can influence people with a "speed and thoroughness" that would be totally unthinkable to a Jewish celebrity 2000+ years ago. ... But that's due to technology, not due to the differences between Kim Kardashian and Jesus. In 500 years, the bloody Annexation of Sol is going to be exceptionally speedy and thorough too, because it's easier to be speedy and thorough when you've got warp-drives and teleporters.
- Trombone5 12y ago
  Well, putting aside the ease with which you deflect an prolonged episode of systematic repression based on ethnicity, did you look at the map? The scale of the forced displacements is literately continent scale! Its probably the biggest settler colonization in history. Compare with the colonization of South America, where the Spaniards aimed to use the existing population for labour, and thus gave them some rights and allowed them stay. Or Africa, where the Colonial powers basically conquered for labor and not for land to settle. I don't know that the pattern of forced displacement has ever occurred on this scale, and with so high compression. Usually when people are forced from their lands, there are some crappier lands somewhere else they go to. From the map this obviously was not what happened. The tribes where forced into extremely small areas over the course of just a hundred years.
  - chrismcb 12y ago
    And pales in comparison to Kahn.
hnnewguy 12y ago
>So presumably, if some foreign power invaded the US next week, violently exterminated most of the population, and herded the survivors into a few tracts of land, you would be fine with that? I can tell you that I wouldn't expect to stand on my doorstep, facing the men with guns, saying, "ah, ah, ah, I own this land!" and have them turn away. We do horrible things to other people, no doubt about it. Even worse, this specific moment in history isn't unique. So it goes.

b6 12y ago

Not at all. Nor am I "fine with" what happened to the natives. All I'm asking is, would it be any major abberration, considering human history? Or would it just be: after atrocious violence and savagery, land briefly under the control of vague human entity X now seems to be under the control of vague human entity Y, episode #37,093,840?

afarrell 12y ago
It would not be. And all of those instances make Robert Nozick's arguments about the sanctity of property rights as a first principle laughable on every continent. I've yet to find a another debate to which this is relevant. Well, except perhaps the debate over that native american reservation that the federal government is currently seizing to hand over to a coal mining company.
atlantic 12y ago
Violence and war are not unusual historically. But the speed and thoroughness with which a whole continent was cleared of its native inhabitants, and the survivors were subject to all kinds of institutionalized abuse until their culture and traditions were erased, is certainly exceptional, and in recent history only compares in severity with what happened to the aboriginals in Australia. Moreover, if there was official recognition of what really happened, even now much could be done to redress the original injustice and give these people some closure. Instead, schoolchildren are taught a sanitized version of American history which really adds insult to injury, from the point of view of the surviving natives.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- Terr_ 12y ago
  > But the speed and thoroughness [...] is certainly exceptional So? In a day, a modern celebrity can influence people with a "speed and thoroughness" that would be totally unthinkable to a Jewish celebrity 2000+ years ago. ... But that's due to technology, not due to the differences between Kim Kardashian and Jesus. In 500 years, the bloody Annexation of Sol is going to be exceptionally speedy and thorough too, because it's easier to be speedy and thorough when you've got warp-drives and teleporters.
Trombone5 12y ago
Well, putting aside the ease with which you deflect an prolonged episode of systematic repression based on ethnicity, did you look at the map? The scale of the forced displacements is literately continent scale! Its probably the biggest settler colonization in history. Compare with the colonization of South America, where the Spaniards aimed to use the existing population for labour, and thus gave them some rights and allowed them stay. Or Africa, where the Colonial powers basically conquered for labor and not for land to settle. I don't know that the pattern of forced displacement has ever occurred on this scale, and with so high compression. Usually when people are forced from their lands, there are some crappier lands somewhere else they go to. From the map this obviously was not what happened. The tribes where forced into extremely small areas over the course of just a hundred years.
- chrismcb 12y ago
  And pales in comparison to Kahn.

hnnewguy 12y ago

>So presumably, if some foreign power invaded the US next week, violently exterminated most of the population, and herded the survivors into a few tracts of land, you would be fine with that? I can tell you that I wouldn't expect to stand on my doorstep, facing the men with guns, saying, "ah, ah, ah, I own this land!" and have them turn away. We do horrible things to other people, no doubt about it. Even worse, this specific moment in history isn't unique. So it goes.