The Morality of Markets

[Moonbeam]

Who did the Aborigines of Australia destroy? What does claiming moral superiority have to do with the issue?

The issue of sympathy and empathy is probably as fascinating a one as we could get into. Personally, I see the issue as a matter of the degree of self hate. Sufficient self hate and one can feel for nobody and especially oneself. Of course, what you would find instead of those two would be callousness and self pride, especially pride in and worship of indifference.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Well . . . here in America we claim moral superiority all the time . . . granted we usually say something like . . . this is the best country on the planet . . . probably the best country that has ever existed.

Morals
In 1779, George Washington instructed Major General John Sullivan to attack Iroquois people. Washington stated, "lay waste all the settlements around...that the country may not be merely overrun, but destroyed". In the course of the carnage and annihilation of Indian people, Washington also instructed his general not "listen to any overture of peace before the total ruin of their settlements is effected". (Stannard, David E. AMERICAN HOLOCAUST. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992. pp. 118-121.)

In 1783, Washington's anti-Indian sentiments were apparent in his comparisons of Indians with wolves: "Both being beast of prey, tho' they differ in shape", he said. George Washington's policies of extermination were realized in his troops behaviors following a defeat. Troops would skin the bodies of Iroquois "from the hips downward to make boot tops or leggings". Indians who survived the attacks later re-named the nation's first president as "Town Destroyer". Approximately 28 of 30 Seneca towns had been destroyed within a five year period. (Ibid)

In 1807, Thomas Jefferson instructed his War Department that, should any Indians resist against America stealing Indian lands, the Indian resistance must be met with "the hatchet". Jefferson continued, "And...if ever we are constrained to lift the hatchet against any tribe, " he wrote, "we will never lay it down till that tribe is exterminated, or is driven beyond the Mississippi." Jefferson, the slave owner, continued, "in war, they will kill some of us; we shall destroy all of them". (Ibid)

In 1812, Jefferson said that American was obliged to push the backward Indians "with the beasts of the forests into the Stony Mountains". One year later Jefferson continued anti-Indian statements by adding that America must "pursue [the Indians] to extermination, or drive them to new seats beyond our reach". (Ibid)

In 1862, President Abraham Lincoln ordered the execution, by hanging, of 38 Dakota Sioux prisoners in Mankato, Minnesota. Most of those executed were holy men or political leaders of their camps. None of them were responsible for committing the crimes they were accused of. Coined as the Largest Mass Execution in U.S. History. (Brown, Dee. BURY MY HEART AT WOUNDED KNEE. New York: Holt, Rinehart, Winston, 1970. pp. 59-61)

The fourth face you see on that "Stony Mountain" is America's first twentieth century president, alleged American hero, and Nobel peace prize recipient, Theodore Roosevelt. This Indian fighter firmly grasped the notion of Manifest Destiny saying that America's extermination of the Indians and thefts our their lands "was ultimately beneficial as it was inevitable". Roosevelt once said, "I don't go so far as to think that the only good Indians are dead Indians, but I believe nine out of ten are, and I shouldn't like to inquire too closely into the case of the tenth". (Stannard, Op.Cit.)

You can always say . . . consider the source . . . but quotes/dates/events can be verified. Personally, I consider Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Jefferson to be three great Americans with considerable records of achievements. But moral in action against their fellow man . . . they were not.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I apologize if you cannot muster the human decency to feel sympathy for those left in the wake of progress but feel insulted when someone highlights how you've benefited from another cultures destruction. My bad.

Sympathy is the ability to feel for those less fortunate. Empathy is to understand how they feel. Why you happen to lack the capacity for either would require an appointment and pre-approval by your HMO.

As for PC . . . let me guess you are an American . . . the United States of America . . . named for an explorer who sailed to the New World coasts in the 15th century. Of course, he came several years after another explorer who thought he was in India. Why don't I just call you Indian then?

I never said I wasn't empathetic, just not sympathetic, because symphathy tends to lead to correcting past transgressions, and I do not support that. I do not believe land should be set aside, special rights should be granted, or special governmental hand-outs passed out based on something that occurred over 200 years ago. Just as I don't think concessions should be given to a group of people that did not break the shackles of slavery over 140-150 years ago. All of that is part of the evolution of society, it is a fact of life. It has always happened and will continue to happen. Some day, America may no longer exist. Should the remnants of the old America expect favorable treatment or concessions because of their loss? I don't think so.

And yes, I consider myself American and only an American. I don't consider myself a Pole (my ancestry) or a Polish-American, for that matter. I don't care about what happens in Poland from a geo-political standpoint, and I could care less about the culture and customs of the Polish poeple. I am not saying you shouldn't either, but from my perspective the Native American culture lost out due to unpreparedness and division, and it is not my duty to make that right. And yes, I reap the rewards of that culture's passing, but I don't care. It has always happened and will always happen.

And regardless of the mistake that was made an explorer, the fact is that it was quickly realized that the land was indeed not India, but something new, so I don't see your argument in referring to me as an Indian.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Who did the Aborigines of Australia destroy? What does claiming moral superiority have to do with the issue?

The issue of sympathy and empathy is probably as fascinating a one as we could get into. Personally, I see the issue as a matter of the degree of self hate. Sufficient self hate and one can feel for nobody and especially oneself. Of course, what you would find instead of those two would be callousness and self pride, especially pride in and worship of indifference.

I don't hate, nor self-hate, I just try not to live in the past.

And I feel sorry for those that think nothing should evolve in this world, that everything should remain pristine and pure with no societal progress.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Well . . . here in America we claim moral superiority all the time . . . granted we usually say something like . . . this is the best country on the planet . . . probably the best country that has ever existed.

Morals
In 1779, George Washington instructed Major General John Sullivan to attack Iroquois people. Washington stated, "lay waste all the settlements around...that the country may not be merely overrun, but destroyed". In the course of the carnage and annihilation of Indian people, Washington also instructed his general not "listen to any overture of peace before the total ruin of their settlements is effected". (Stannard, David E. AMERICAN HOLOCAUST. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992. pp. 118-121.)

In 1783, Washington's anti-Indian sentiments were apparent in his comparisons of Indians with wolves: "Both being beast of prey, tho' they differ in shape", he said. George Washington's policies of extermination were realized in his troops behaviors following a defeat. Troops would skin the bodies of Iroquois "from the hips downward to make boot tops or leggings". Indians who survived the attacks later re-named the nation's first president as "Town Destroyer". Approximately 28 of 30 Seneca towns had been destroyed within a five year period. (Ibid)

In 1807, Thomas Jefferson instructed his War Department that, should any Indians resist against America stealing Indian lands, the Indian resistance must be met with "the hatchet". Jefferson continued, "And...if ever we are constrained to lift the hatchet against any tribe, " he wrote, "we will never lay it down till that tribe is exterminated, or is driven beyond the Mississippi." Jefferson, the slave owner, continued, "in war, they will kill some of us; we shall destroy all of them". (Ibid)

In 1812, Jefferson said that American was obliged to push the backward Indians "with the beasts of the forests into the Stony Mountains". One year later Jefferson continued anti-Indian statements by adding that America must "pursue [the Indians] to extermination, or drive them to new seats beyond our reach". (Ibid)

In 1862, President Abraham Lincoln ordered the execution, by hanging, of 38 Dakota Sioux prisoners in Mankato, Minnesota. Most of those executed were holy men or political leaders of their camps. None of them were responsible for committing the crimes they were accused of. Coined as the Largest Mass Execution in U.S. History. (Brown, Dee. BURY MY HEART AT WOUNDED KNEE. New York: Holt, Rinehart, Winston, 1970. pp. 59-61)

The fourth face you see on that "Stony Mountain" is America's first twentieth century president, alleged American hero, and Nobel peace prize recipient, Theodore Roosevelt. This Indian fighter firmly grasped the notion of Manifest Destiny saying that America's extermination of the Indians and thefts our their lands "was ultimately beneficial as it was inevitable". Roosevelt once said, "I don't go so far as to think that the only good Indians are dead Indians, but I believe nine out of ten are, and I shouldn't like to inquire too closely into the case of the tenth". (Stannard, Op.Cit.)

You can always say . . . consider the source . . . but quotes/dates/events can be verified. Personally, I consider Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Jefferson to be three great Americans with considerable records of achievements. But moral in action against their fellow man . . . they were not.

This disputes my point... how?

At any rate, before we got here, the Indians had been busy slaughtering each other for thousands of years. And the cycle goes on and on and on...

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Who did the Aborigines of Australia destroy? What does claiming moral superiority have to do with the issue?

The issue of sympathy and empathy is probably as fascinating a one as we could get into. Personally, I see the issue as a matter of the degree of self hate. Sufficient self hate and one can feel for nobody and especially oneself. Of course, what you would find instead of those two would be callousness and self pride, especially pride in and worship of indifference.

Where did they come from before they populated Australia? What sub species of Humans did they slaughter to survive? We'll never know.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Every culture on Earth has destroyed another culture if one goes far anough back in time. They wouldn't be here if they hadn't.

None can claim moral superiority.

Actually the majority of Native American tribes rarely destroyed other tribes. I think you would be hard pressed to find ANY record of a tribe killing every member of another tribe, although the occasional butt kicking followed by assimilation of the remnants can be found. But it is quite easy to find cultural histories of combat a relatively innocuous one is a favorite sport in the mid-Atlantic and Northeast . . . lacrosse exists for this reason.

Compact histories of Native American tribes
You can end your ignorance of Native tribes or continue to generalize to satisfy your ideology.

 

[Moonbeam]

Will we ever know how many sub groups they saved?

Humans are faced with an interesting evolutionary challenge. We become conscious or we go extinct. Only a clear recognition that we are on a path to extermination can save us. Unfortunately, to become conscious is to know yourself. Who is prepared for the profound and unconscious nature of our self hate. Man would rather die than know. He would rather kill than know. It's not an easy problem. Sad that one day we will see the last human child. And to think we may be completely alone in the universe. What a shame. But we need our pride and our stupid certainty that we are right.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

I think you would be hard pressed to find ANY record of a tribe killing every member of another tribe, although the occasional butt kicking followed by assimilation of the remnants can be found. .

And this is different from the invasion of the Europeans how? Many, if not most, tribes still exist today, in some form or fashion.

And while tribes may have not KILLED every member of an opposing tribe, the essentially wiped off that tribe through the assimilation. It is no different than what you accuse the Europeans of doing.

 

[Moonbeam]

And while tribes may have not KILLED every member of an opposing tribe, the essentially wiped off that tribe through the assimilation. It is no different than what you accuse the Europeans of doing.
--------------------

But if so why do we call them the savages? Why don't we go about bragging we're the greatest pigs on the planet.

Why do we wrry about pretenses like WMD. We're top dog, why don't we just wipe out the rest of the planet. Um maybe you,d better not tell me. I don't want any smoke from the ears looking for a reason. God knows you might not find one.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

I think you would be hard pressed to find ANY record of a tribe killing every member of another tribe, although the occasional butt kicking followed by assimilation of the remnants can be found. .

And this is different from the invasion of the Europeans how? Many, if not most, tribes still exist today, in some form or fashion.

And while tribes may have not KILLED every member of an opposing tribe, the essentially wiped off that tribe through the assimilation. It is no different than what you accuse the Europeans of doing.

Bingo. Many tribes were driven from hunting lands by other tribes, or virtually wiped out in the means CPA describes.

The myth of the American Indian being peace loving, tree hugging hippy type folks is just that, a myth.

 

[Vic]

Welfare is appeasement. Appeasement to prevent the lowest classes from revolting against the upper classes. They are buying off the lazy scum of the earth to keep the existing system in place, that's all. Of course, they're using the wealth and the backs of the middle class to do it, c'est la vie!
As for one culture against another, there is only one litmus test of morality: survival. A culture that does not survive was not moral to itself. It failed, like the dodo, or like how the giant panda will for being such a fussy eater. Such is life again... you can't change it, as it is reality. Get over it.

 

[tm37]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
tm37:

The government should protect us from enemies forien and domestic. they should not give money to thoose who choose not to work. WHen I look at my yearly tax bill it stirs my blood to think that most of this money is being wasted. I have little say in the way that it is spent and most of our leaders continue to spend my money on welfare, farm programs, tobacco subsidies, and the like. At somepoint one must relieze that you are your own person. If you want to help the poor give to charity.
---------------------------
I do give to charity. I consistently vote for socialists and leftist candidates who believe in community charity. I only stirs my blood, throws me into apoplectic seizures, makes me moan and groan and whine, that my one vote is so ineffective in seizing even more from you in taxes. Might makes right, no, and when the majority awakens to the class war perpetrated against them in its denial, they will take what is theirs to take, no?, just like we did with the Indians.

I rarely travel this far out to left field but......

I think it great to give to charity and I do as well. However it is my choice. I used to give to the red cross but after the way they handled the fires in San DIego county a few years back I stopped. See it was a choice I didn't like how they handled my money so now they don't get any. Unfortunately it isn't that way with government charity. The welfare program is a black hole of money. It just gets sucked in. I would really like to stop that funding but the government won't let me opt out. The problem with government run charities is there is no accountability. Also the solution is always to throw more money at it. WHen the government provides food to the homeless it costs us the taxpayer about 2.50 a meal, quite a bargain really but if the salvation army sets up a soup kitchen and provides meals they are spending about 65 cents a meal. The real shocker is ask the homeless guy which food is better and SA wins just about everytime. The real crime in government charity is that it becomes an entitlement, People feel they are owed this money. Add the workers who provide these services, and got a pay raise this year when the majority of privite sector workers were lucky not to lose there jobs or take a pay cut, and I am not only funding someone who doesn't want to work but I am also funding someone to ensure they get the best availible benifits (more of my money).

The welfare system is flawed and will always be flawed if job training is not REQUIRED to continue to receivve benifits. Give a man a fish and he eats today. Teach a man to fish and he eats forever. I think I heard that somewhere.