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:
I can see how it would make you feel better about yourself if disease were the main contributer to the native's demise......
No one is disputing that, it played a part.....
The inability of the natives to band together, (out of personal greed or whatever) & side with WHITEY, played a part.....
WHITEY showing up with superior technology & horses, played a part....
All of these factors led to the conquer & subjugation of the natives....
With so many contributing factors, one could argue it was "GOD'S will"....
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 you keep denying those points, "there are none so blind as those who will not see".....
The fact that we control the land is evidence of our superiority.....
And why do you not even attempt to address the English "conquest"? :rofl[/B]
Control of the land is "conquest', as opposed to 'quest' which is what you are engaged in.....
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.
So now it's genocide, I thought that disease was the culprit?......:roll:
Disease knows no moral or ethics, so your question has no validity.....
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?
Conjecture, not fact.....
You don't seem to distinguish between different indigenous groups, so there's little basis for distinction between those "vanquished" and those not.
They were all vanquished or you would not be whining right now.....
Then why do you not object to the fact that diseased criminals came into America unchecked from Europe?
Once again, it was the age of imperialism....
It is incumbent upon the homeowners to repel invaders, if they fail then they suffer the consequences.....
The English and Spanish infestations resulted in the pervasive spread of infectious plague, so why is there no objection there?
Once again, the natives were unprepared.....
One could argue "devine intervention" on behalf of WHITEY......
YES, that is why it is in the history books......
Reclamation of indigenous territory by modern immigrants also "simply is."
I understand it is your 'quest', you won't see it in your lifetime, most likely never.....
There is obviously some inconsistent application of principles in your "analysis."
The facts speak for themselves.....
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 keep talking about hate, I'm talking about legal immigration & secure borders, the two are unconnected....
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.
The original assertions are correct, in my opinion.....
If these "responses" are to be as poorly crafted as your prior ones, Scarecrow will have every reason to mind, I suspect.
If he doesn't like my answers, he can post his own, it is a free forum......
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.
Again, you can follow your quest, & be vanquished........
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?
What does slavery have to do with this subject?......
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.
Who's the racist here?......
Victor & vanquished is confirmation of who is 'better quality'.....
And again...who's to say that the indigenous re-populating the U.S. aren't "conquering" you, dear lad?
It won't be in my lifetime, if ever......
Maybe that is them "working for it." Or isn't that what you actually think?
Immigrating legally would be my definition of 'working on it'.......
