What if Columbus was the first...?

[Southern Patriots]

If it were only so simple as an analogy. But it isn't. They were weaker, they lost. People need to get over it.

So if I'm stronger than you that gives me moral right to your property? Or does this only apply to mobs of people rather than individuals?

Never said anything about morals. People need to stop attaching their PC-naive feelings to wars in the past. I swear, I'm going to start getting all misty-eyed that no one cares about the Visigoths and their plight.

yes you did.

what other reason did you have for posting a human sacrifice picture?

To remind you atrocities may be subjective, since you don't seem to care about the hundreds of thousands killed by the innocent Aztecs.

[Ashmoria]

If it were only so simple as an analogy. But it isn't. They were weaker, they lost. People need to get over it.

hey you are the one who implied that it was a matter of good europeans dealing with the evil natives.

what would "getting over it" involve?

Never said good and evil. Point out where I attached those labels.
And "getting over it" involves not whining about the natives losing in wars. There are plenty of contemporary cultures that could use your sympathy so they don't get wiped out.

again, what was your reason for posting a human sacrifice picture if not to justify the european conquest?

[Ashmoria]

If it were only so simple as an analogy. But it isn't. They were weaker, they lost. People need to get over it.

So if I'm stronger than you that gives me moral right to your property? Or does this only apply to mobs of people rather than individuals?

Never said anything about morals. People need to stop attaching their PC-naive feelings to wars in the past. I swear, I'm going to start getting all misty-eyed that no one cares about the Visigoths and their plight.

yes you did.

what other reason did you have for posting a human sacrifice picture?

To remind you atrocities may be subjective, since you don't seem to care about the hundreds of thousands killed by the innocent Aztecs.

the aztecs are their own people. their moral failings really dont reflect on anyone but themselves.

and who said anything about anyone being innocent? all i have said and have seen anyone else say is that the europeans were not the good guys in this thing. pretending that they had any but bad motives for their conquest of the americas is wrong.

[Tokos]

the aztecs are their own people. their moral failings really dont reflect on anyone but themselves.

The Aztecs ran a tribute empire on the backs of their neighbours. That's how the small Spanish force managed to get so many allies.

I'm not backing the oafish "They were mean so we were doing the right thing by invading them" argument, just saying.

[Southern Patriots]

If it were only so simple as an analogy. But it isn't. They were weaker, they lost. People need to get over it.

hey you are the one who implied that it was a matter of good europeans dealing with the evil natives.

what would "getting over it" involve?

Never said good and evil. Point out where I attached those labels.
And "getting over it" involves not whining about the natives losing in wars. There are plenty of contemporary cultures that could use your sympathy so they don't get wiped out.

again, what was your reason for posting a human sacrifice picture if not to justify the european conquest?

Perhaps to put the atrocities in perspective, so you'd understand that more natives met their end at the blade of another native than at the blade or gun of a European.
Its frankly racist to blame everything on Europeans for killing natives when more natives killed each other than were killed by Euros.

[Cosmopoles]

Never said anything about morals. People need to stop attaching their PC-naive feelings to wars in the past. I swear, I'm going to start getting all misty-eyed that no one cares about the Visigoths and their plight.

So you don't consider it morally right? In what sense was it right at all?

As soon as someone suggests that the destruction of the Visigothic kingdom was a good thing maybe you'd have a point in making that defence.

[Ashmoria]

the aztecs are their own people. their moral failings really dont reflect on anyone but themselves.

The Aztecs ran a tribute empire on the backs of their neighbours. That's how the small Spanish force managed to get so many allies.

I'm not backing the oafish "They were mean so we were doing the right thing by invading them" argument, just saying.

interesting bits of history are always welcome.

the aztecs had a true empire. that generates enemies.

[Southern Patriots]

Never said anything about morals. People need to stop attaching their PC-naive feelings to wars in the past. I swear, I'm going to start getting all misty-eyed that no one cares about the Visigoths and their plight.

So you don't consider it morally right? In what sense was it right at all?

As soon as someone suggests that the destruction of the Visigothic kingdom was a good thing maybe you'd have a point in making that defence.

I think people acting like the natives are innocent and the conquest of the Americas was unjust are being naive. Attach whatever morals you want to whatever orifice you choose.
And you all suggest the destruction of the Visigoths was a good thing, because I've yet to hear anyone say one nice thing about them.

[Southern Patriots]

the aztecs are their own people. their moral failings really dont reflect on anyone but themselves.

The Aztecs ran a tribute empire on the backs of their neighbours. That's how the small Spanish force managed to get so many allies.

I'm not backing the oafish "They were mean so we were doing the right thing by invading them" argument, just saying.

Thats not my argument either. Only a moron would save the Aztecs were invaded to liberate the Tlaxcalans. I'm saying there is no moral highground to be fought over. Wars happen, the victors conquer and the defeated are vanquished. No sense crying over it and blaming people.

[Cosmopoles]

I think people acting like the natives are innocent and the conquest of the Americas was unjust are being naive. Attach whatever morals you want to whatever orifice you choose.

Do you consider the conquest of the Americas morally right or not? Its a simple question.

And you all suggest the destruction of the Visigoths was a good thing, because I've yet to hear anyone say one nice thing about them.

This is a total non sequitur.

[The Dutch State]

What if Christopher Columbus was the person who actually discovered the Americas? What if there were no natives? How would the world be different?

He would still be a complete idiot.

[Tekania]

but religious tolerance and freedom is what made the conquest of the new world worthwhile. without that incentive, why would anyone else bother?

Fixed it.

For all the sobbing over the natives losing wars (like thats a first in human history), people would be singing a different song if these guys were still around practicing their hobbies.

Yeah, it's a good thing these guys:


Won...

[Ashmoria]

the aztecs are their own people. their moral failings really dont reflect on anyone but themselves.

The Aztecs ran a tribute empire on the backs of their neighbours. That's how the small Spanish force managed to get so many allies.

I'm not backing the oafish "They were mean so we were doing the right thing by invading them" argument, just saying.

Thats not my argument either. Only a moron would save the Aztecs were invaded to liberate the Tlaxcalans. I'm saying there is no moral highground to be fought over. Wars happen, the victors conquer and the defeated are vanquished. No sense crying over it and blaming people.

people are people and as such are a mix of good and bad. native americans are as capable of evil as europeans are; that is part of being human.

but there is no sense pretending that there is a moral equivalence between those fighting for their homes and those fighting to take those homes.

[Southern Patriots]

but religious tolerance and freedom is what made the conquest of the new world worthwhile. without that incentive, why would anyone else bother?

Fixed it.

For all the sobbing over the natives losing wars (like thats a first in human history), people would be singing a different song if these guys were still around practicing their hobbies.

Yeah, it's a good thing these guys:


Won...

Thats sort of my point. Neither side is innocent, so there is no point lamenting the loss of one or condemning the victory of the other.

[Tokos]

This is exactly what I meant by oafish arguments. Saying "Well, it's better/worse that these guys got control of the place because of political freedoms/GDP several hundred years down the line" is… nonsensical.

Maybe we should exterminate the Pashtuns and send Swedes and Swiss to Afghanistan so in a few hundred years' time there will be a country with lovely human rights and rich banks?

You see? Silly logical, it's.

[Southern Patriots]

the aztecs are their own people. their moral failings really dont reflect on anyone but themselves.

The Aztecs ran a tribute empire on the backs of their neighbours. That's how the small Spanish force managed to get so many allies.

I'm not backing the oafish "They were mean so we were doing the right thing by invading them" argument, just saying.

Thats not my argument either. Only a moron would save the Aztecs were invaded to liberate the Tlaxcalans. I'm saying there is no moral highground to be fought over. Wars happen, the victors conquer and the defeated are vanquished. No sense crying over it and blaming people.

people are people and as such are a mix of good and bad. native americans are as capable of evil as europeans are; that is part of being human.

but there is no sense pretending that there is a moral equivalence between those fighting for their homes and those fighting to take those homes.

I'll play ball with this idea. Can you prove to me that the natives never attacked the homes of colonists or settler and/or killed women and children?

[Southern Patriots]

This is exactly what I meant by oafish arguments. Saying "Well, it's better/worse that these guys got control of the place because of political freedoms/GDP several hundred years down the line" is… nonsensical.

Maybe we should exterminate the Pashtuns and send Swedes and Swiss to Afghanistan so in a few hundred years' time there will be a country with lovely human rights and rich banks?

You see? Silly logical, it's.

Are you addressing me? Because I'm saying there is no better or worse, there simply is.

Although your idea about the Pashtun may be worth it in the long run...

[Tokos]

Are you addressing me? Because I'm saying there is no better or worse, there simply is.

Although your idea about the Pashtun may be worth it in the long run...

I was not addressing you. Your post appeared as I was typing (was addressing the gallery in general, though).

What's wrong with Pashtuns? I wouldn't like to live there, but they don't seem to bother anyone except each other.

[Tekania]

Thats sort of my point. Neither side is innocent, so there is no point lamenting the loss of one or condemning the victory of the other.

Not really, your example is the Aztecs, mine represents, well... pretty much all of Europe... Most of the native tribes did not engage in human sacrifice, on the flips side it would be hard to find a European Nation in that time frame who did NOT engage in religious persecution and the execution of heretics and the like.

[The RAWR]

This is exactly what I meant by oafish arguments. Saying "Well, it's better/worse that these guys got control of the place because of political freedoms/GDP several hundred years down the line" is… nonsensical.

Maybe we should exterminate the Pashtuns and send Swedes and Swiss to Afghanistan so in a few hundred years' time there will be a country with lovely human rights and rich banks?

You see? Silly logical, it's.

That doesn't sound like a bad idea..besides the whole "exterminate" and all.

[Consaria]

It would take a whole lot longer to get across the US and a whole lot harder to survive.

[Southern Patriots]

Are you addressing me? Because I'm saying there is no better or worse, there simply is.

Although your idea about the Pashtun may be worth it in the long run...

I was not addressing you. Your post appeared as I was typing (was addressing the gallery in general, though).

What's wrong with Pashtuns? I wouldn't like to live there, but they don't seem to bother anyone except each other.

Yes, they are an interesting people. I'm just concerned about so many joining the Taliban.
But that's a matter for another thread.

[Tokos]

The Taliban are from the American perspective what the Aztec priests were to the Europeans - completely irrelevant unless you actually in their home territory.

[Southern Patriots]

Thats sort of my point. Neither side is innocent, so there is no point lamenting the loss of one or condemning the victory of the other.

Not really, your example is the Aztecs, mine represents, well... pretty much all of Europe... Most of the native tribes did not engage in human sacrifice, on the flips side it would be hard to find a European Nation in that time frame who did NOT engage in religious persecution and the execution of heretics and the like.

The French, Dutch, and Swedish come to mind as not being overly violent with the natives, and dealing with them in a friendly fashion. And if you claim one incident (the Aztecs) does not condemn a whole group, you shouldn't pass a picture of Jews being hung as the actions of all Europeans on all natives.

[Tekania]

Thats sort of my point. Neither side is innocent, so there is no point lamenting the loss of one or condemning the victory of the other.

Not really, your example is the Aztecs, mine represents, well... pretty much all of Europe... Most of the native tribes did not engage in human sacrifice, on the flips side it would be hard to find a European Nation in that time frame who did NOT engage in religious persecution and the execution of heretics and the like.

The French, Dutch, and Swedish come to mind as not being overly violent with the natives, and dealing with them in a friendly fashion. And if you claim one incident (the Aztecs) does not condemn a whole group, you shouldn't pass a picture of Jews being hung as the actions of all Europeans on all natives.

I wasn't referring to the treatment of natives by Europeans. I was referring of blood spilled by Europeans, including with one another.