We All Live On Stolen Land...

[Cow Poke]

Christian Manifest Destiny.

You'll be surrendering your property first thing in the morning?

[Cow Poke]

Denmark agrees, and has made no bones about that. That was a mistake, our fault. When Trump asked the danish ambassador whether he could buy Greenland from us that put us in a very embarrassing spot. Greenland is slowly getting their autonomy, and we give them a lot of services during this long transition.

Was it you guys who got the names backwards? Greenland vs Iceland?

[Leonhard]

Was it you guys who got the names backwards? Greenland vs Iceland?

It was green back then <,..,<

[Cow Poke]

It was green back then <,..,<

[Ronson]

Was it you guys who got the names backwards? Greenland vs Iceland?

I had read that the name "Greenland" was a marketing ploy invented by Eric the Red to attract immigration.

[Cow Poke]

I had read that the name "Greenland" was a marketing ploy invented by Eric the Red to attract immigration.

Is it also true that the Danes had drinking contests to see who could come up with the longest names of cities?

[Ronson]

Is it also true that the Danes had drinking contests to see who could come up with the longest names of cities?

They lost to the Welsh

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Llanfairpwllgwyngyll

[Cow Poke]

They lost to the Welsh

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Llanfairpwllgwyngyll

Well, I'll be dipped in coal oil!

[seer]

Conquoring is stealing. It all moral discussions of war, war of conquest, is almost universally considered immoral. If what the settlers did should be considered conquest then the action is pretty much entirely indefensible and should be viewed as a tragic evil which nevertheless happened. Might does not make right.

My point is that this was common practice, practiced by most peoples and tribes. Even native Americans again each other. But my objection is about our European ancestors being singled out. And that I, in this day and age, am somehow responsible.

Some do, however even if you don't that is not hypocritical. It is not wrong at all to point out that great evils occurred in the past, without offering an action to rectify it.

Do they point out the wrongs Indians did to other Indians? Like the Iroquois wiping out pretty much the entire Huron peoples and taking their lands?

[seer]

The wealth of the North and the South was built on slaves, they helped build the industrial backbone, and they worked as the cheapest of labor. This is not much different from Europe which also grew wealthy on slave trade, Denmark is no different in that regard. This wealth gave certain countries an edge economically, and allowed them to reach the industrial age faster. After that it is true that slaves disappear as a substantial amount of the income, they had also been prohibited almost universally by that time.

You are wrong Leonhard the slaves did not build the industrial north, which was the wealthy part of the country. Period.

For instance in New England:

Part of the reason slavery evolved differently in New England than in the middle and southern colonies was the culture of indentured servitude. As a carryover from English practice, indentured servants were the original standard for forced labor in New England and middle colonies like Pennsylvania and Delaware. These indentured servants were people voluntarily working off debts, usually signing a contract to perform slave-level labor for four to seven years. Historians estimate that more than half of the original population of the American colonies was brought over as indentured servants.

New England colonies were also slower to start accepting African slavery in general—possibly because there were local alternatives to enslaved Africans. Early in New England’s history, a different kind of slave trade emerged: enslaving and shipping local Native Americans to the West Indies. This kind of slavery was limited compared to the number of enslaved Africans and indentured servants that eventually came to New England, but exporting and enslaving these native people was an undeniable part of the early New England slave trade.

Exactly. You tend to attack moral foundations of a person, instead of their argument. However I am a Christian like you. So if you want to justify your arguments you'll have to examine the morality of it. When it comes to God you and I both believe in Him and consider him the source of truth and goodness, and the be all and end all, and the one who sets what is right and wrong.

No Leonhard I challenge their hypocrisy and their selective outrage.

[Ronson]

My point is that this was common practice, practiced by most peoples and tribes. Even native Americans again each other. But my objection is about our European ancestors being singled out. And that I, in this day and age, am somehow responsible.

Do they point out the wrongs Indians did to other Indians? Like the Iroquois wiping out pretty much the entire Huron peoples and taking their lands?

I recall this story from my school years - with one difference. I was taught that Columbus was entreated to do something about the Carib tribe by the Arawak. The Carib were so ferocious that they even attacked Columbus' ships by canoe and arrows while harbored off their island (most Indians were afraid of the relatively large European ships and stayed away from them). Anyway, Columbus agreed with the Arawak and began a campaign to wipe out the "cannibal" Carib tribe.

This story differs from that somewhat.

https://www.livescience.com/are-colu...aims-true.html

[Ronson]

Who is Drumpf?

"Trumpf" was the German family name before someone (grandfather apparently) had it Americanized to "Trump." Some of his detractors get a kick out of that. Some also like to change the "T" to a "D".

On my father's side, the family name was "Corea" (Portuguese). My father had it changed in the 1930s because Yankees had trouble pronouncing it.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Right, and we in the West are doing much better.

How do you define "we in the West are doing much better"?

Nope, and neither did women or blacks. But they all do now...

That they were initially prevented from being regarded as citizens makes my point. The Belgians did not permit Africans in the Congo to have a role in citizenship either. Nor did the British in India. One cannot imagine that in the 1880s, an Indian would have been permitted to stand as an MP for election to the British Parliament.

But that is a fact,

That they are historical facts does not imply we should excuse [or applaud] such behaviours.

... I mean do we get upset when one tribe of chimps slaughter and take the territory of another tribe of chimps.

I do hope you are not attempting to equate Native Americans or Africans with chimps.

Nor does one troupe of chimps use guns and artillery against another troupe armed only with spears and bows and arrows.

The evolutionary process has no relevance to this exchange. Attitudes that one group/race is superior to another is a cultural behaviour. We cannot know how our earliest human ancestors viewed other groups with which they came into contact because they have left no written sources. Our entire knowledge of those ancient human being is premised on palaeontology.

The earliest evidence of organised warfare comes from Sumer, and ancient although that civilisation undoubtedly is, it is still comparatively recent in terms of human evolution.

[seer]

How do you define "we in the West are doing much better"?

Better as in applying rights to all people, blacks, women have the vote, we ended Jim Crow, etc...

That they were initially prevented from being regarded as citizens makes my point. The Belgians did not permit Africans in the Congo to have a role in citizenship either. Nor did the British in India. One cannot imagine that in the 1880s, an Indian would have been permitted to stand as an MP for election to the British Parliament.

And that is no longer the case, which is my point.

That they are historical facts does not imply we should excuse [or applaud] such behaviours.

I'm not excusing anything, but we seem to have selective outrage - we are eager to point to the sins of whites when just about every other ethnic group and tribe did the same things.

I do hope you are not attempting to equate Native Americans or Africans with chimps.

No I equate chimps to human beings, being a close cousin. If you are an atheist what humans do to humans is just all part of the evolutionary process.

Nor does one troupe of chimps use guns and artillery against another troupe armed only with spears and bows and arrows.

So? Any group would take advantage if it could.

The evolutionary process has no relevance to this exchange. Attitudes that one group/race is superior to another is a cultural behaviour. We cannot know how our earliest human ancestors viewed other groups with which they came into contact because they have left no written sources. Our entire knowledge of those ancient human being is premised on palaeontology.

It absolutely does, the atheist has no moral ground to judge any of this. And we don't have to know what our ancestors did or not we know what we do and tribalism in deep in our DNA, just as it is in the DNA of our cousins the chimps.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Better as in applying rights to all people, blacks, women have the vote, we ended Jim Crow, etc...

And that is no longer the case, which is my point.

How were those rights won? Were they generously granted simply because they were politely requested?

I'm not excusing anything, but we seem to have selective outrage - we are eager to point to the sins of whites when just about every other ethnic group and tribe did the same things.

Not in recent history on quite the same scale. No one is denying that, at least since recorded history, humans have engaged in warfare with other human groups.

No I equate chimps to human beings, being a close cousin.

Their evolutionary relationship is not the issue. Chimps do not have the sophisticated cultures of humans.

If you are an atheist what humans do to humans is just all part of the evolutionary process.

You might do well to read up on some primatology and palaeontology as well as some social anthropology.

So? Any group would take advantage if it could.

That is a sweeping assumption premised on an unknown.

It absolutely does, the atheist has no moral ground to judge any of this. And we don't have to know what our ancestors did or not we know what we do and tribalism in deep in our DNA, just as it is in the DNA of our cousins the chimps.

Once again, on what evidence? How do you explain the connection between DNA and certain human cultural behaviours?