Do you think manifest destiny is just another way of saying unjustifiable aggression?

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by JohnT
Was it OK for humanity to originally expand from Africa to Asia, Europe, N. America etc? Was it OK for Ivan the Great to create Russia by invading Siberia? Was it OK for the Native Americans themselves to destroy other Native Americans for their own material gain?

Is it right for a mold to fight another mold for dominance? Is it right for African crocodiles to hoard dwindling water supplies from the wilderbeast? Is it immoral for ants to fight each other for prime living space? Is it immoral for trees to grow, blocking the lights of more fragile plants that desperately need it?

Is it right to proselytize Islam in Utah? Is it right to ask people to join the Democratic party, even if they're Greens? Is it right to even try to change somebody's opinion?

To complain about "Manifest Destiny" is to whine about a specific example of something that happens to all things. Life... systems... organizations... all try to grow and they will attempt to do so at the expense of the other.

Such is the world we evolved from. Sorry it makes you feel uncomfortable.

'Civilization' is all about seperating humanity from nature, it says that we've taken control of out 'destiny' and can make our goals what we want. We don't kill people because we're destined to, we kill them because we choose to.

Unless you're saying civilization is a farce.

[Odin]

It makes me mad that US history books use the term "annex" instead of "conquer." and make the texans look like heroes while the mexicans were trying to save thier own country from our imperialism.

[Ted Striker]

i have this problem with the way stalin is portrayed too

[St Leo]

Originally posted by JohnT
Was it OK for humanity to originally expand from Africa to Asia, Europe, N. America etc?

Yes. No intraspecies agression.

[/i]Was it OK for Ivan the Great to create Russia by invading Siberia?[/i]

No, not okay. Also, he never got around to invading Siberia.

Was it OK for the Native Americans themselves to destroy other Native Americans for their own material gain?

No, not okay.

Is it right for a mold to fight another mold for dominance?

Same or different species?

Is it right for African crocodiles to hoard dwindling water supplies from the wilderbeast?

Yes.

Is it immoral for ants to fight each other for prime living space?

Yes.

Is it immoral for trees to grow, blocking the lights of more fragile plants that desperately need it?

No.

Is it right to proselytize Islam in Utah?

All missionary work is by definition immoral.

Is it right to ask people to join the Democratic party, even if they're Greens?

It's right.

Is it right to even try to change somebody's opinion?

Yep.

To complain about "Manifest Destiny" is to whine about a specific example of something that happens to all things. Life... systems... organizations... all try to grow and they will attempt to do so at the expense of the other.

They don't have to. We are memetically capable of not doing it. There's no reason to do it. Human expansion to Mars would benefit me extremely due to technological advances. Mexican conquest of Texas and genocide of all Texans would give me nothing.

[Nubclear]

Well obviously. America only annexes nations while the rest of the world conquers them.

[MrFun]

The United States behaved like any other country in any given historical period.

I would not be living in Illinois for example, if we had not conquered the hundreds of different Amerindians entities/tribes.

At the same time, to whitewash this period of conquest as something else does injustice to the true violent period when Amerindians and white settlers committed atrocities on one another.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Vesayen


So its okay to kill native americans and steal their land, and the land of mexico and other colonial powers because we need breathing room to expand?

Who else said that? Oh yes, Hitler in Mien Kempf.

yah we killed and took their land. we weren't very nice about it either. just like slavery its not the most moral spot in history. but if u look at it a little removed its almost an inevitabiliy of the cultural collision. our culture was the more pervasive and dominating.

like said in enter the dragon "how many things have died for want of strength."

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Osweld


'Civilization' is all about seperating humanity from nature, it says that we've taken control of out 'destiny' and can make our goals what we want. We don't kill people because we're destined to, we kill them because we choose to.

Unless you're saying civilization is a farce.

No, what I'm saying is that it should neither surprise nor sadden anybody that the structure of human civilization up to this point, including "manifest destiny," bears the very imprint of those behaviors that the previous billions of years of evolution and development has shown us to be successful.

Can we change our behavior now? Sure. Will we? Likely, over time, as technology makes such changes easier on the individual level. But as for the past... to use another analogy, human civilization might, just might be coming out of the toddler era and becoming young children, aware of the rules and doing our best to keep to them, but that cookie jar is just so tempting...

It's not that we were evil or immoral, we're just highly evolved animals who then were going through yet another massive radical evolutionary process, this time known as the Industrial Revolution. And the Indians weren't. So be it.

[Guynemer]

I don't think anyone is shocked by the behavior of "manifest destiny"... after all, we are animals, and behave as such on a constant basis. It's the term itself, it minimizes what actually happened. It's on par with "collateral damage."

[JohnT]

Originally posted by MrFun
At the same time, to whitewash this period of conquest as something else does injustice to the true violent period when Amerindians and white settlers committed atrocities on one another.

True, and I do understand that this is Vesayen's point as well.

However, I do consider modern civilization to be far superior than anything the American Indians had to offer, so I don't waste my time bemoaning the past at the expense of improving the future.

That, too, is a value judgement.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
If the gay community is ever to grow, they need to kick out the evil straight people! Especially here in Utah.

Just admite it. You are hoping someboy, any body, will give you an excuse to leave Utah.

[Dis]

I guess I am living on stolen land.

I don't care.

I love my state.

[St Leo]

The point isn't that the land you are living on is stolen. The point is that you can stop the cycle of theft and counter-theft NOW!

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by St Leo
The point isn't that the land you are living on is stolen. The point is that you can stop the cycle of theft and counter-theft NOW!

Exactly.... the past dosent matter but we shouldnt lie about it either. Improve the future.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by JohnT


True, and I do understand that this is Vesayen's point as well.

However, I do consider modern civilization to be far superior than anything the American Indians had to offer, so I don't waste my time bemoaning the past at the expense of improving the future.

That, too, is a value judgement.

Just because I have an interest in the history of Amerindian culture, does not mean that I bemoan the trajectory of continental conquest.

Just want to be clear on that -- I'm not an Amerindian worshipper, but I'm interested in their history.