Deny Pizzaro & Cortez all you want, but their conquests are indelibly etched in the history books......
Inaccurate history books, perhaps. "Deny"? No, I've simply addressed the actual reasons for their so-called "victory," as summarized by Restall's
Seven Myths of the Spanish Conquest:
Chapter 3 deals with what Restall calls "the Myth of the White Conquistador" — the belief that the Spanish conquest was accomplished by a small number of white Spaniards. Restall claims that much of the actual military operations was undertaken by the indigenous allies of the Conquistadors, outnumbering the actual Spanish forces by many hundreds to one. He also shows that there were several conquistadors of African and Moorish descent — dispelling the idea of the conquest as a victory of the "white Europeans" over the "red Indians"...Chapter 7 deals with what Restall calls "The Myth of Superiority" — the belief that the success of the Spanish conquest was due to either the supposed technological superiority of the Spaniards or a kind of inherent cultural superiority — and that Spanish victory was therefore inevitable. Restall claims that such technological advantages as handguns, cannons, steel armor, horses and dogs weren't of great consequence in the actual fighting since they were all in short supply, and that the Aztecs were not daunted by this new technology for long. He also refutes the notion that the Indians' lack of alphabetic writing constituted a major drawback. Nor were the Indians childlike, naive or cowardly in comparison with the Spanish such as many early Spanish sources have painted them. Restall argues that the factors behind the success of the conquistadors were mostly the devastating effect of European diseases for which the Indians had no resistance, the disunity between indigenous groups some of which allied with the Spaniards early, the technological advantage of the steel sword, native battle practices that were not upheld by the Spaniards — such as killing non-combatants and civilians, and most importantly the fact that the Indians were fighting on their own ground with their families and fields to care for, which made them quicker to compromise.
You have offered no response, no legitimate reply, the reason for this being that
you do not have one. You are desperate to cling to the fallacious myths of total European superiority over the Native American population to justify your own equally fallacious mindset and worldviews. The problem with that is that
the foundations are flawed. Why not provide actual counter-argument instead of mumbling that Indians should get over their "loss" and shrilly repeating the same talking points over and over again, as though you're blind and deaf? And why do you not even attempt to address the English "conquest"? :rofl
It doesn't need to be justified, it simply is.......
Ah,
is-ought fallacy. The
prescriptive cannot be derived from the
descriptive. Try again, and I'd recommend making an attempt to answer the question this time: Was the genocide against Amerindians
ethical or morally right? Its occurrence is quite apparent; I am inquiring about its
morality. Do attempt to respond properly.
The victors generally prosper, the vanquished don't, you can draw your own conclusion.......
I cannot, actually, as that is not an answer to my question. What of the fact that a united indigenous population in all their strength would have repelled all European invasion? You don't seem to distinguish between different indigenous groups, so there's little basis for distinction between those "vanquished" and those not.
There needs to be some sort of 'quality control', which is the purpose of the LEGAL immigration process.......
Is is imprudent to allow diseased criminals into our country unchecked....
Then why do you not object to the fact that diseased criminals came into America unchecked from Europe? The English and Spanish infestations resulted in the pervasive spread of infectious plague, so why is there no objection there? Because it "simply was"? Reclamation of indigenous territory by modern immigrants also "simply is." There is obviously some inconsistent application of principles in your "analysis."
It was the age of imperialism, it is incumbent upon the invaded to defend themselves......
This holds true in any age though......
You still seem unable to offer
ethical justifications for your claims. Do you know why racism is generally irrational? More often than not, it's based on conclusions derived from anecdotal encounters with members of the hated race(s) and sujective preference and bias over sound ethical analysis, which demands objectivity. That is why you're not able to provide any logically consistent ethical basis for your claims.
You answered nothing. What you did was repeat the original assertions that led to my challenges in the first place, without provision of sound counter-argument or even indication that you'd adequately considered the meaning of my words.
And, if Scarecrow doesn't mind, I will field these as well.....
If these "responses" are to be as poorly crafted as your prior ones, Scarecrow will have every reason to mind, I suspect.
Wrong! He is enforcing the law....
Maybe quite a bit more zealously than some....
In fact, I would say those not performing to his standard are slackers.....
Oh, you misunderstand. I am referring to the
nature of his enforcement, which is the basis for the acknowledgment of him as a unique figure. You are correct that there are slackers about...in my opinion, the inhabitants of the Pima-Maricopa reservation should organize an effort to deport little Joey to Italia where he belongs. Hell, I might even make a trip over there to help out myself.
Laws are generated by common sense, ethics is generated from what makes you feel good.......
Also not a response. Unless you regard slavery as ethical or slave liberation as unethical, my example provided a clear demonstration that there is a divergence and at times a
sharp conflict between legal and ethical standards. Ethics is the study of morality, ethical guidelines based on pursuing moral aims, and many laws at odds with that. Why are you perpetually incapable of providing a sound response?
Again, you will have to get over it, & learn to live within the rules of society laid down by your conquerors or perish.....
If you want something different, you will have to work for it.....
Which "conquerors" are you referring to? The English and Spanish are clearly not conquerors, inasmuch as they relied upon the ravages of infectious disease and the help of indigenous people of better quality than them to establish settlements in America. And again...who's to say that the indigenous re-populating the U.S. aren't "conquering" you, dear lad? Maybe that is them "working for it." Or isn't that what you actually think? :lol:
