About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Forward one pageLast Page


Post 60

Monday, August 11 - 9:39pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
John,

In response to post #51: Yes, European culture can validly be subdivided into separate cultures. And, yes, one can talk about the European culture as a whole. These are both valid - if they are done correctly. I can talk about those attributes of the Spanish culture contemporaneous with the French culture. And I can talk about a common level of technical sophistication in all or most of Europe. I can NOT say that there were many instances of people being beheaded in France in a certain period and then generalize it to all of Europe without some evidence. The very process of 'chewing' on cultural differences and similarities is helpful in seeing common roots to cultural beliefs.

You admit, in at least 3 of your posts, that all native Americans tribes were not violent - that is all that I ask on that point. Thank you.

You said to me, "Are you also condemning the many people here who also criticize Islamic culture based on observing individual instances? Christian culture? Gang culture? Marxist culture?" No. First, I have certainly not to condemned ANYONE here. I have tried to point out errors or inconsistencies I see - not attack people. I said above that the linking of an individual act as a trait of a culture is a reasoned process - evidence is supplied. One is saying "this" is why I claim that these instances of behavior apply to this culture. It can't just be that an incident occurred. One might establish a link with say, the Inquisition, and a certain culture by showing the connection between the state and the church in different countries, the fact that both the state and the church sanctioned the behavior, that the culture in those areas had many related beliefs that were widely held that accepted and integrated with the practices of the Inquisition. Then we identify all of the cultures that fit - that is, to which this reasoning applies - and we end up saying that the Inquisitor was a part of several of Europe's cultures doing that period, but not all. I suspect that pretty much anyone here on ROR could do a valid job of linking incidents to Christian, gang, or Marxist cultures - I know that you can. What I'm saying is that it is that the process is NOT being done correctly in this thread.


John, you said, "I'm sure Stalin was nice to his dog too. Does that mean we should ignore all the bad he did?" I'm saying no, but stick with the 'logic' used in this thread, where you appear to be defending the proposition that because some native Americans were savages, all native American cultures were savage.





Post 61

Monday, August 11 - 10:04pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
John,

In reply to your post #52. You said, "The European renaissance started in the 16th century." There are many different renaissances (Italian, French, etc.) and most historians would say the European renaissance started much earlier than the 16th century.

I'm not a historian and my take on the European renaissance is that of an intellectual rebirth that came into being because of the rediscovery of Aristotle and that became the bridge for logic and reason to cross over the dead intellectual carcass and mystical swamps of the dark ages.

Because of that I would date it's beginning with Thomas Acquinas' lectures in Paris. That is where Aristotle was reintroduced to human minds - about 1270 - the 13th century.

I would mark the end of this period with John Locke in the 1600's.

I am completely in agreement with Ayn Rand's statement, "The Renaissance was specifically the rebirth of reason, the liberation of man's mind, the triumph of rationality over mysticism - a faltering, incomplete, but impassioned triumph that led to the birth of science, of individualism, of freedom."

When you state, "But it seems according to Steve, Rand was incorrect to label this period of history a renaissance because he's given us some headlines from the 16th and 17th century that indicate behavior not consistent with reason" you do two things:

One, you drop down to a level of cheap rhetoric that is below that standards that previously existed in this thread. I invite you to hold to the previous high standards we have observed - there are no enemies of Objectivism in this argument.
Two, you bolster my argument. I'm the one who has been saying from the beginning that you can NOT take individual incidents and make of them a condemnation of a culture without showing the reasoning that makes them properties of the culture and validates the scope of the culture being mentioned. That was my point in listing those European incidents.

You say, "So I guess Rand was wrong to call it a renaissance." We know that is intended as sarcasm, but strangely enough it's an accurate reflection of the invalid logic used in this thread - but not by me.



Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Post 62

Monday, August 11 - 10:40pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Teresa,

You said, "It's probably a safe bet to assume all of the Native American cultures were pretty much the same as these Brazilian people, with some superficial differences. Isolation will do that to people."

It's a good thing you weren't betting money on that rather fuzzy assertion, because you would have lost it. There were tribes in the North-West that had forms of currency, traded with other tribes, had a degree of specialization of labor, had an economy that was mostly supported by fishing but also grew food.

(And by the way, wouldn't you say that a claim that ideas are a product of isolation or its lack is deterministic?)

I can't for the life of me see why people want to lump together apples and oranges then ignore valid differences.

Don't we care about the early attempts to form laws, respect property, engage in trade, make peaceful resolutions of conflict? Why does it matter that these were in a minority? Yes they were, so what? John says these good tribes were mostly overrun by other tribes that were savage - yeah, so what? Or that they died of diseases - yeah, so what? The point I'm making is that there were human beings that that had ideas and formed some cultures that showed the beginnings of civilized interactions - the start of moving from primitive to more advanced. Why are some people trying so hard to declare that untrue when it is a simple fact?

No where in this thread am I arguing in favor of savagery or justifying it, or idealizing primitive culture, or dismissing the achievements of European philosophy, science and technology, or claiming that one shouldn't condemn bad ideas or savage cultures, and I'm not standing up for cultural relativism or moral equivalence. Anyone that chooses to be honest can determine that from my posts. So why are so many people fighting so hard to see all native Americans as without natural rights? Of what benefit is that?

Here is why this is important:

To dismiss the natural rights of any individuals, historical or contemporary, by means of a fallacious method of arguing is a real and serious danger. A illogical argument that says native Americans had no natural rights can be applied, willy-nilly, all over the place to deny the natural rights of almost anyone, anywhere, anytime. And it should not be Objectivists that give that bad argument it's precedent and a free ride.



Post 63

Monday, August 11 - 11:03pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Teresa,

Your whimsical rejoinder to Ted and Ed, So, how far should Brazil hold back the modern world in respect of these "rights?" may really be at the heart of this strange thread. The unstated belief that if you can't condemn a primitive culture as without rights that we are left as losers, somehow, in any class of cultures. Hoisted by our own petard.

But even though the principles governing the clash of cultures are tough to work out, there is never a question of the primary values of individual rights and knowledge and rule of law being thrown out and some mud-hut dwelling, mystical savage is going to stop progress. And progress isn't purchased at the expense of consistency in the application of individual rights.

The Brazilian Indians in your pictures fall under existing jurisdictional law - no matter who came first, that's a current fact. They live in Brazil. I'd give them plots of land titled to individuals, to the degree they worked that land, and then let them exist among the other citizens of Brazil - anyone shoots arrows goes to jail. No reservations and no 'sovereign Indian government.' They have natural rights and that means obligations. Anyone that wants to trade their land for a bunch of beads is free to do so. The Brazilian government has no obligation to recognize their tribal cultural practices where they conflict with law. The more peace loving, rational and civilized a culture the less pain it's people will undergo in being assimilated by the more civilized culture. I don't see the problem. I certainly don't see any need to throw out the concept of natural rights out of fear that somehow, if we don't sort of fudge around it, we will all be held hostage in some fashion to these painted, jungle dwellers.



Post 64

Monday, August 11 - 11:11pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
John says, "...in all the history of all indigenous North American and South American populations, Aztecs, Mayan, etc, NONE of them invented the wheel?" And he goes on to say, "So what kind of farming are we talking about? The most primitive forms of farming imaginable, barely out of the stone age farming."

So what? Does that mean they don't have natural rights? When did possession of some unspecified level of technical advancement by ones culture become the determining factor of whether you had any natural rights?




Post 65

Tuesday, August 12 - 3:37amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
It's a good thing you weren't betting money on that rather fuzzy assertion, because you would have lost it. There were tribes in the North-West that had forms of currency, traded with other tribes, had a degree of specialization of labor, had an economy that was mostly supported by fishing but also grew food.

But these things have existed in all societies throughout human history. Where's the innovation that pushes for exploration of the world and a better way of life?  It didn't exist then, or exist now in Brazil's jungle tribes.  Introduce a single new idea (like a plow!), and Galt knows what could happen.  It all hinges on how open any group of people is to knew ideas.  An idea could be burned at the stake, or allowed to run for thousands of miles. 

Why did some societies run, and others burn?  This isn't a new question. Anthropologists have been asking it for a hundred years. 

(And by the way, wouldn't you say that a claim that ideas are a product of isolation or its lack is deterministic?)

I would say that ideas don't grow or develop without perceptual means.  Kant might say that, but I wouldn't.

The Brazilian Indians in your pictures fall under existing jurisdictional law - no matter who came first, that's a current fact. They live in Brazil. I'd give them plots of land titled to individuals, to the degree they worked that land, and then let them exist among the other citizens of Brazil - anyone shoots arrows goes to jail. No reservations and no 'sovereign Indian government.' They have natural rights and that means obligations.

I agree.  The problem is where to put the stake offs, and how to communicate their meaning, and if that meaning will be accepted by all parties, and what happens if it isn't accepted.

 Anyone that wants to trade their land for a bunch of beads is free to do so. The Brazilian government has no obligation to recognize their tribal cultural practices where they conflict with law. The more peace loving, rational and civilized a culture the less pain it's people will undergo in being assimilated by the more civilized culture. I don't see the problem. I certainly don't see any need to throw out the concept of natural rights out of fear that somehow, if we don't sort of fudge around it, we will all be held hostage in some fashion to these painted, jungle dwellers.

Agreed.




Post 66

Tuesday, August 12 - 5:21amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Teresa,

You said, "But these things [having forms of currency, trading with other tribes, having a degree of specialized labor, having an economy that was mostly supported by fishing but also grew food] have existed in all societies throughout human history. Where's the innovation that pushes for exploration of the world and a better way of life? It didn't exist then, or exist now in Brazil's jungle tribes.

These things did exist in some native American tribes that were peaceful and didn't exist in others. I have just been pointing out that not having innovation, or not having as much innovation, isn't the same as being violent savages with no natural rights. Look at the 'logic' that lets some savage violent behaviors, common to cultures A and B, be used to brand all the cultures, including C and to state that natural rights don't exist for anyone in A, B or C and to imply that this may be related to their culture being less sophisticated technically and philosophically. That's faulty logic, it's dangerous and that's what I'm objecting to.

Why some societies move towards civilization and other towards savagery (not just primitive cultures, but more recent cultures as well - Hitler's Germany, Poi Pot's Cambodia, etc.) is a separate question - and a good one. But we have to be able to see the peaceful as separate from the savage before we can examine their differences.

You said that ideas are formed by perceptual means - of course. All humans automatically convert sensory information to percepts and build concepts from percepts - but they do it alone - that is, in their mind. Aristotle, Rand, you, me and some Indian in the Northwest in the 1700's who came up with an idea of currency. My point is that ideas, hence cultures aren't created by not being isolated. I think that's one of Jared Diamond's deterministic explanations of human cultural differences which you will notice he discusses with never a mention of epistemology, the structure of or integration of knowledge or the human capacity to choose or human psychology or the part of an innovative mind, or the fitness of one economic idea over another. In Guns, Germs and Steel he specifically wanted to eliminate all genetic, or cultural (including moral) differences and have only the environment as the explanation of cultural differences - and ended being accused of determinism, and properly so.

As for the problem of how, specifically to integrate the primitive Brazilian natives into main-stream... Well, if you are a benevolent culture, you do it in a series of short steps instead of all at once. You get some translators and educate the Indians to the basics of being a citizen in the country of Brazil. You make sure they understand what they cannot do and where to go if they need answers. A private charity is always free to fund helpers to be on the spot and aid in the transition. But the responsibility for grasping that there are new rules and consequences for violating them, that is up to the natives - no free rides and no exceptions on rights and responsibilities.



Post 67

Tuesday, August 12 - 8:45amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
This thread is about justice as regards the potential property rights of native Americans.

The question is about whether and how much such rights, if existent, were infringed. Phil Osborn says native American rights were existent and, in general, infringed (that settlers, including the Founding Fathers, were rights-violators no different from Old Europe). But justice -- according to Aristotle -- is about the following 2 prescriptions:

(1) treating equals equally
(2) refraining from treating unequals equally

The first question then, is whether native Americans were equal with regard to property rights. Questions such as: "Were native Americans (as parts of their tribes) rights-violators, in general?" become totally relevant to this first aspect of justice.

After the first aspect of justice (discovering whether native Americans were equal to settlers with regard to property rights) is dealt with, and a conclusion is reached, we may have to proceed to the second aspect of justice: If native Americans didn't respect property rights like the settlers did, but did so unequally -- then how should they have been treated?

Ed




Post 68

Tuesday, August 12 - 10:05amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Steve, calm down:

John says, "...in all the history of all indigenous North American and South American populations, Aztecs, Mayan, etc, NONE of them invented the wheel?" And he goes on to say, "So what kind of farming are we talking about? The most primitive forms of farming imaginable, barely out of the stone age farming."

So what? Does that mean they don't have natural rights? When did possession of some unspecified level of technical advancement by ones culture become the determining factor of whether you had any natural rights?


I didn't say none of the indigenous tribes had rights. Now you're projecting an argument on me I never made. The point of that which I started the phrase with "on an unrelated note" which you chopped off (now you're really being unfair, could you give me the courtesy of posting my complete sentence when responding?) was that they were much better off in the long run having had contact with European settlers. Because otherwise they most likely would have lived for thousands of more years in a culture not much more advanced than stick and stone. If the Europeans hadn't arrived, maybe after another 5,000 years they would've started working with metals, and invented the wheel. The point I was trying to make was that these continents called the Americas were much better places now because of European colonization.



Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 69

Tuesday, August 12 - 10:22amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Hey, what are you doing?
---
I'm discovering whether native Americans were equal to settlers with regard to property rights.
---
Oh yeah. How can you do that?
---
It's already done. No question whatsoever - no native Americans had any property rights. You see, many of the tribes sanctioned violent, savage acts by their members and didn't respect property rights.
---
Okay, but what about the tribes or individuals that were peaceful and didn't violate anyone's property rights?
---
I'm generalizing from scalpings and other violent actions and from the fact that most tribes didn't add value to property or really even understand property.
---
Yeah, but, like I said, some did. And aren't property rights natural rights? I mean, you know, belong to the individual until they give them up?
---
I'm generalizing, and you did hear me about them doing those scalpings, right? And there is a significant difference in sophistication of technology and philosophy between Europeans and native Americans that is important here.
---
But if not all of them scalped... and I still don't understand how you can take a natural right away from someone who hasn't violated anyone's rights.
---
I'm not taking anyone's rights away. This is about Justice:
(1) treating equals equally
(2) refraining from treating unequals equally
The first question then, is whether native Americans were equal with regard to property rights. And they aren't.
---
But they are equal in that they are human. They are equal in their need to the product of their efforts to survive. Are they not human?

After all some settlers and some Indians kept slaves, and they did it because they didn't think their slaves were equal. But in fact the slaves were human and equal in that sense and their rights were being violated.

Let's compare an Indian tribe that didn't keep slaves (yeah, there were some) and say that they are more equal than the settlers, some of whom did keep slaves, therefore settlers don't have rights - did I screw that up, or wouldn't that be the same reasoning?
---
No, that is not the approach I'm taking. If native Americans didn't respect property rights like the settlers did, but did so unequally -- then how should they have been treated?
---
How should WHO be treated? Those individuals that violated someones rights should be treated as criminals. Tribes that sanctioned such actions should not have consideration given to their status as a valid government. How can you divorce rights from individuals? And from Actions? You are claiming that Indian actions show you a lack of respect for property rights - but then you divorce rights from actions and individuals and remove them from all humans whose genetic antecedents were here before the Europeans. Kind of a genetically-inherited, property-rights disadvantage. Doesn't that concern you?
---
No, I've already decided that all native Americans have no property rights because some of some native American tribes. I'm taking a different approach than Rand's because her's clearly wouldn't work here. The approach is to see what the bad actors of some culture do, then take away the corresponding rights of all members of that culture and any similar cultures.

By the way, did you know that most Muslims aren't equal to Western culture in their concepts of liberty? It raises the interesting question of whether or not they have any rights to be walking around at all.

And, it might sound a little radical, but Christians actually don't have the right to have children... stick with me here. See, they don't respect reproductive rights and actually oppose them and some of them have set off bombs at abortion clinics. I know that not all Christian cultures hold the same exact view, but justice says we can remove Christian reproductive rights because of the inequality. Cool, huh?





Post 70

Tuesday, August 12 - 10:23amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Steve:

In response to post #51: Yes, European culture can validly be subdivided into separate cultures. And, yes, one can talk about the European culture as a whole. These are both valid - if they are done correctly. I can talk about those attributes of the Spanish culture contemporaneous with the French culture. And I can talk about a common level of technical sophistication in all or most of Europe. I can NOT say that there were many instances of people being beheaded in France in a certain period and then generalize it to all of Europe without some evidence. The very process of 'chewing' on cultural differences and similarities is helpful in seeing common roots to cultural beliefs.

You admit, in at least 3 of your posts, that all native Americans tribes were not violent - that is all that I ask on that point. Thank you.


Admit that they were not all violent? You act as if I made the argument they were all violent for me to concede the argument they weren't? I didn't. In general, the ones that didn't immediately die off from disease, were mostly violent. That's the claim I make and that is supported by the history. You are projecting statements on me I never made.

John, you said, "I'm sure Stalin was nice to his dog too. Does that mean we should ignore all the bad he did?" I'm saying no, but stick with the 'logic' used in this thread, where you appear to be defending the proposition that because some native Americans were savages, all native American cultures were savage.


I'm sticking with MY logic. And I SAID perhaps savage is not the best term, but MOST indigenous American cultures WERE savage. 100%? No. Were they all primitive? YES. Every single one was painfully primitive, barely out of the stone age primitive, stick and stone technology, etc. A level of sophistication in technology and philosophy not seen in Europe for thousands of years. In general, European settlers did not take land away from peaceful, primitive tribes. Those were exceptions to the general historical record. Most of the violent conflicts ignited over nomadic, violent tribes attacking settlers. Nomads which do not recognize property rights in the Lockean or Objectivist sense.

I don't agree with how Ed worded the last paragraph of his post, but I took it as a satirical response to the contemporary PC view that evil European colonization was a genocide for the poor, victimized indigenous tribes. Maybe I was wrong to take his comments in the last paragraph as satire, I can see how they are inflammatory, if satire wasn't Ed's intent then I disavow any sanction I would give to that last paragraph. I don't see anything wrong with everything preceding it though.



Post 71

Tuesday, August 12 - 10:28amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
John,

urQ,The point I was trying to make was that these continents called the Americas were much better places now because of European colonization.

I don't necessarily disagree with this sentiment, but that thought was a pillar of the belief known as "white man's burden", which was used to justify many abuses of rights.

jt



Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 72

Tuesday, August 12 - 10:34amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Steve:

When you state, "But it seems according to Steve, Rand was incorrect to label this period of history a renaissance because he's given us some headlines from the 16th and 17th century that indicate behavior not consistent with reason" you do two things:

One, you drop down to a level of cheap rhetoric that is below that standards that previously existed in this thread.

I invite you to hold to the previous high standards we have observed -


High standards that include hurling the racist accusation and the cheap rhetoric in post 69 I see. Please keep your own house in order before criticizing mine thank you.



Two, you bolster my argument. I'm the one who has been saying from the beginning that you can NOT take individual incidents and make of them a condemnation of a culture without showing the reasoning that makes them properties of the culture and validates the scope of the culture being mentioned. That was my point in listing those European incidents.


I agree. But going by the general historical record, the European settles violating the rights of indigenous tribes was an exception to that historical record, not the norm.



Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 73

Tuesday, August 12 - 11:05amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
John,

Ed has made this an issue of ALL native Americans. Look at the title of the thread. You have admitted that all tribes were not violent savages, but you continually minimize this observation.

You have said:
in Post 43: "The differences amongst those tribes for the purpose of Ed's analysis were not significant to the essentials."

in Post 51: "Indigenous American tribes were mostly savage, primitive stone age peoples without a sophistication for the ideas of property rights".

in Post 29: "But rather that the indigenous tribes (not fond of the term Native American, I am a native to America but I don't share a bloodline with those tribes) were culturally, as far as property rights concerned, inferior to the European settler's ideas of property ownership."

What you have NOT done is to separate yourself from Ed's argument that ALL native Americans had NO property rights. You have continued to argue in a way that would lead anyone reading this thread to believe that you are mostly in agreement with Ed's redefinition of property rights as something other than natural to each human being.

You claim that in post #69 I called someone a "racist" - that is NOT true - I said that it is wrong to say that all peoples who's genetic ancestors were here before the arrival of the Europeans have no property rights. Here is the quote you did not provide: "You are claiming that Indian actions show you a lack of respect for property rights - but then you divorce rights from actions and individuals and remove them from all humans whose genetic antecedents were here before the Europeans. Kind of a genetically-inherited, property-rights disadvantage. Doesn't that concern you?"

I hope you will be honest enough to admit that is what I said and that I have not called anyone a racist.

And why don't you come right out and tell us - do you believe that ALL native Americans were without property rights? And more important, do you believe, as Ed does, that property rights for native Americans are somehow different from individual rights that belong to individuals by virtue of being human?



Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 74

Tuesday, August 12 - 11:13amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
John,

Referring to post #58, I am calm.

I'm simply persisting in pointing out that NONE of rationals or comparisons or unrelated notes justify taking away rights from an ALL native Americans - that is the title's offering and the thrust of a number of posts. And you chose your side on this thread. A thread in which Ed is redefining property rights such that they are no longer belong of all human beings, by virtue of being human.

I didn't address the rest of your post because it wasn't directly relevant to what I was saying.

And, because I didn't think much of the arguments. I don't think people are better of with the rights stripped away because their genetic-ancestors were here before the Europeans arrive. It is too much like the argument that the colonial slaves were really better off than in Africa.

The other argument was that the continents are better places because of the European colonization, doesn't excite me either because I think that Individual rights are the issue here and that fact that we are in a better place doesn't change the issue of rights under discussion.



Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 75

Tuesday, August 12 - 11:45amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Steve:

John,

Ed has made this an issue of ALL native Americans. Look at the title of the thread. Ed has made this an issue of ALL native Americans. Look at the title of the thread. You have admitted that all tribes were not violent savages, but you continually minimize this observation.


Of course I'm minimizing it because it's worth minimizing!! Indigenous tribes recognizing property rights of others was an exception to the norm for these cultures.

I took the title of the thread to be an attention grabber. All is not the appropriate term, but for crying out loud Steve, you act as if most indigenous tribes had a recognition of property rights? These tribes were mostly extended communal families, without a recognition of individualism. This is the definition of tribalism, a way of life that deserved extinction. (note, I said way of life, not people, that deserve extinction)

And why don't you come right out and tell us - do you believe that ALL native Americans were without property rights?


You're making an issue with me that is unwarranted.

The fact that I've said over and over again that some tribes were peaceful, that some used agriculture, and that by and large their land was not taken by force by the European settlers (the fact I said theirs should be obvious, shouldn't it Steve that I think some of them did have a right to property?) should mean I have said explicitly enough that some indigenous Americans at that time had property rights.

I think you just WANT to label me a racist and are trying to figure out how to weasel words into me I never wrote. I think you just want to think by and large many indigenous tribes recognized property rights, by and large they didn't. Why don't you just come out and admit most indigenous tribes had no concept of property ownership?





Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 76

Tuesday, August 12 - 11:53amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Steve:

I didn't address the rest of your post because it wasn't directly relevant to what I was saying.

And, because I didn't think much of the arguments. I don't think people are better of with the rights stripped away because their genetic-ancestors were here before the Europeans arrive.


Once again, cheap rhetoric on your part to which you chided me for not keeping the previous high standards of this thread. You're making an accusation that seems to imply most of them had their rights stripped, not true, most of them did not experience this, most of them just died of disease, the ones that recognized rights by and large didn't have them stripped, and the ones that didn't recognize rights, had no moral claim to have theirs respected.

I'm saying from a historical perspective, ultimately more good came out of European colonization than bad. Make what you want of that perspective, but don't go assuming that means I sanction evil, immoral acts.



Post 77

Tuesday, August 12 - 2:48pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Quotes and links -- for perspective:

Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights (on indigenous American tribes)

The Atlasphere (on the film: Apocalypto)


The Objectivist view of tribes and of America:

Ayn Rand Lexicon (Tribalism) ...
It is obvious why the morality of altruism is a tribal phenomenon. Prehistorical men were physically unable to survive without clinging to a tribe for leadership and protection against other tribes. The cause of altruism’s perpetuation into civilized eras is not physical, but psycho-epistemological: the men of self-arrested, perceptual mentality are unable to survive without tribal leadership and “protection” against reality.

The doctrine of self-sacrifice does not offend them: they have no sense of self or of personal value—they do not know what it is that they are asked to sacrifice—they have no firsthand inkling of such things as intellectual integrity, love of truth, personally chosen values, or a passionate dedication to an idea.

Ayn Rand Lexicon (America) ...
America’s founding ideal was the principle of individual rights. Nothing more—and nothing less. The rest ... was the logical consequence of fidelity to that one principle. The first consequence was the principle of political freedom, i.e., an individual’s freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by the government.
The most profoundly revolutionary achievement of the United States of America was the subordination of society to moral law. The principle of man’s individual rights represented the extension of morality into the social system—as a limitation on the power of the state, as man’s protection against the brute force of the collective, as the subordination of might to right. The United States was the first moral society in history.

All previous systems had regarded man as a sacrificial means to the ends of others, and society as an end in itself. The United States regarded man as an end in himself, and society as a means to the peaceful, orderly, voluntary co-existence of individuals.

All previous systems had held that man’s life belongs to society, that society can dispose of him in any way it pleases, and that any freedom he enjoys is his only by favor, by the permission of society, which may be revoked at any time. The United States held that man’s life is his by right (which means: by moral principle and by his nature), that a right is the property of an individual, that society as such has no rights, and that the only moral purpose of a government is the protection of individual rights.

It took centuries of intellectual, philosophical development to achieve political freedom. It was a long struggle, stretching from Aristotle to John Locke to the Founding Fathers.

The system they established was not based on unlimited majority rule, but on its opposite: on individual rights, which were not to be alienated by majority vote or minority plotting. The individual was not left at the mercy of his neighbors or his leaders: the Constitutional system of checks and balances was scientifically devised to protect him from both.

This was the great American achievement—and if concern for the actual welfare of other nations were our present leaders’ motive, this is what we should have been teaching the world.

To the glory of mankind, there was, for the first and only time in history, a country of money—and I have no higher, more reverent tribute to pay to America, for this means: a country of reason, justice, freedom, production, achievement. For the first time, man’s mind and money were set free, and there were no fortunes-by-conquest, but only fortunes-by-work, and instead of swordsmen and slaves, there appeared the real maker of wealth, the greatest worker, the highest type of human being—the self-made man—the American industrialist.

If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose—because it contains all the others—the fact that they were the people who created the phrase “to make money.” No other language or nation had ever used these words before; men had always thought of wealth as a static quantity—to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted or obtained as a favor. Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created.

In its great era of capitalism, the United States was the freest country on earth—and the best refutation of racist theories. ... Men of racial groups that had been slaughtering one another for centuries, learned to live together in harmony and peaceful cooperation. America had been called “the melting pot,” with good reason. But few people realized that America did not melt men into the gray conformity of a collective: she united them by means of protecting their right to individuality.

This country—the product of reason—could not survive on the morality of sacrifice. It was not built by men who sought self-immolation or by men who sought handouts. It could not stand on the mystic split that divorced man’s soul from his body. It could not live by the mystic doctrine that damned this earth as evil and those who succeeded on earth as depraved. From its start, this country was a threat to the ancient rule of mystics. In the brilliant rocket-explosion of its youth, this country displayed to an incredulous world what greatness was possible to man, what happiness was possible on earth. It was one or the other: America or mystics.

Americans have known how to erect a superlative material achievement in the midst of an untouched wilderness, against the resistance of savage tribes. What we need today is to erect a corresponding philosophical structure, without which the material greatness cannot survive.
It was a European who discovered America, but it was Americans who were the first nation to discover this earth and man’s proper place in it, and man’s potential for happiness, and the world which is man’s to win.
Make no mistake about it, these are the kind of things attacked by multiculturalist, off-the-cuff statements such as this hypothetical but potentially very popular statement:

"The white man ran roughshod over the unsuspecting, pure and innocent, nature-loving American Indians. The white man came over the Atlantic to take this land by force and fraud -- and he lied, cheated, stole from, or murdered most every native American who got in his way. This country's supposedly-moral "birth" was nothing more than an extension of the Divine Right of Kings."


Ed




Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 78

Tuesday, August 12 - 7:52pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
John,

Referring to post 75 and 76:

I don't want you to be a racist - that's absurd! I believe we have both been fairly civil in our responses (although getting kind of edgy).

There are only a few things of any importance to me on this thread. One is the attempt to generalize from a specific tribe to all tribes and you have been kind enough to reject that explicitly for me in a recent post. Another thing is the attempt to redefine property rights such that they either didn't exist for an individual because of the culture he was born into instead of being a natural result of being a human. You have explicitly denied that is your view.

It remains a mystery to me why you aren't objecting to the redefinition of property rights, but I think I'll just leave that as your issue and not my business.

Given that there is no more reason for any exchange and given the fact that our exchanges are growing heated, I'll bow out at this point, from addressing you on this thread. If you have anything you want me to respond to, just ask, but otherwise, I'll say, "Adios."



Post 79

Tuesday, August 12 - 8:36pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Ed,

I've read your last post and the linked articles. I found nothing that I disagreed with.

I agree with you that there is an insane PC push to paint a utopian picture of primitive life in general and of the native Americans in particular that is absurd. You and I both have argued against posts here at ROR in the past that were yearning from some kind of return to the hunter-gather stage of development.

I agree with you that there is a PC drive to revise history to paint a different picture of the conflicts between settlers and Indians that is a complete moral white-washing of reality. That movement is wrong on the facts and much worse, they are wrong in their willingness to lie - they are attempting to destroy the currency of knowledge to edge people closer to their ends.

We agree that most tribal cultures showed little to no respect for natural rights.

We agree that multiculturalism is not a value, that moral equivalency is wrong, that cultural relativism is wrong.

But we don't agree on several things: One is that ALL native American tribes should be referred to as savage, violent aggressors. We don't agree that it is logical to extrapolate from the behaviors of some tribes to the conclusion that all tribes, because they are tribes, should be treated as "right-less", and we definitely do not agree that property rights should be redefined such that they do not belong to every single human no matter what culture they are born into.

One of the links you provided was to the No Apology to Indians article at the Ayn Rand Center. I liked this statement which was addressing our government's policies towards Indians, "When those policies erred, it was usually by treating Indians collectively, as 'nations' entitled to permanent occupancy of semi-sovereign reservations. Instead, Indians should have been treated as individuals deserving full and equal American citizenship in exchange for embracing individual rights, including private ownership of land." That is the proper way to address these cultural differences. Apply natural rights, not take them away from an entire culture - which actually can't be done, since the culture doesn't have ethical rights - only individuals.



Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Forward one pageLast Page
User ID Password reminder or create a free account.