tango Posted April 21, 2009 Report Posted April 21, 2009 (edited) http://www.historyforkids.org/learn/northa...er1500/economy/ Just as in India, China, or Europe, most of the [indigenous] people who lived in North America around 1500 AD were farmers. There were also some people who hunted and gathered their food, like the Cree people who gathered wild rice, or the California [View map] people who gathered acorns to crush into bread. Traders continued to bring metals, stone, shell and furs all up and down the rivers from coast to coast. When most of these [indigenous] people died of smallpox and measles, in the 1500's and 1600's AD, trade pretty much fell apart for a while. You can imagine that if you were catching all sorts of unheard-of diseases, you might not want to see very many strangers! But soon Spanish traders sailed to North America, looking for things they could bring back to Spain [View map] with them. ... At the same time, with so many people dead from smallpox and measles, and from being killed by European invaders, there were a lot of abandoned fields and villages all over North America. The point I have been making repeatedly is that the epidemics of disease that killed the vast majority of Indigenous Peoples of North America occurred in the 100 years following early exploration (Columbus, 1492) and before settlement of colonies (1607). This was the period of the Spanish and Portuguese "conquest" of the Americas, when there were primarily European military, missionaries and traders, but not European settlers in America. Indigenous oral history indicates that boatloads and wagonloads of [infected] blankets were delivered to Indigenous communities either by the (Spanish or Portuguese) military or by Catholic missionaries. Whether this germ warfare continued under the French and British may be debatable, but there is little question that the Pope's Spanish/Portuguese 100 year "Conquest of the Americas" led to the deaths of 95% of its Indigenous Peoples. Edited April 21, 2009 by tango Quote My Canada includes rights of Indigenous Peoples. Love it or leave it, eh! Peace.
lictor616 Posted April 21, 2009 Report Posted April 21, 2009 (edited) Nonsense. The Amerindian feel and flavour of South America is pervasive and apparent to anyone with half a brain. It has evolved, morphed and thrived with no linear breaks either.The difference with Poland is, we killed the Nazis for the benefit of Polish Culture. The "Amerindian feel and flavor"... wow dancer, i'd love to get what ever your hopped-up on... So we still see Mexicans, Venezuelans, Colombians, Chileans etc readily speak Nahuatl and other pre Spanish dialects eh? Really? I bet we still see sacrificial processions in many towns and gosh I bet south americans still file down their teeth to give off the appearance of a raucous animal. Perhaps shrunken heads are also in vogue there? I was on exchange through AFS in 2002 for a year... traveled Venezuela, Columbia extensively... and you know who people worship and veneer there? Ancient tribal mores the "Aztec" ?... not at all... Simon Bolivar and Christianity gets probably 95% of the cultural pie... and so far as I could tell, Spanish was the only language I ever heard there. Except in Brazil... which as you doubtless know is Portuguese... ah yes... Europe hardly left a dent there- native culture is "thriving" hard... The "Amerindian feel" hasn't evolved, it has disappeared... vanished... irrevocably.. forever. If it didn't: bleeding heart liberals wouldn't have a reason to be sobbing and complaining about Cortez so much... Edited April 21, 2009 by lictor616 Quote -Magna Europa Est Patria Nostra-
M.Dancer Posted April 21, 2009 Report Posted April 21, 2009 The "Amerindian feel and flavor"... wow dancer, i'd love to get what ever your hopped-up on... So we still see Mexicans, Venezuelans, Colombians, Chileans etc readily speak Nahuatl and other pre Spanish dialects eh? Really? I was on exchange through AFS in 2002 for a year... traveled Venezuela, Columbia extensively... and you know who people worship and veneer there? Ancient If it didn't: bleeding heart liberals wouldn't have a reason to be sobbing and complaining about Cortez so much... Quite jejune....I suppose then you don't believe there is such a thing as Irish culture...cause very few irish, certainly less than the total number of south americans who speak a native language, speak gaelic.... ...and I suppose there is no such thing as German culture, (aside from public nudity and forming human pyramids) cause no one sacrifices humans to Wottan anymore.... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
tango Posted April 21, 2009 Report Posted April 21, 2009 (edited) The Native Americans, like the Moors in Spain, were for a time considered without rights as long as they were not converted to Catholicism.[citation needed] Columbus was made governor of the new territories and made several more journeys across the Atlantic Ocean. He profited from the labour of native slaves, whom he forced to mine gold; he also attempted to sell some slaves to Spain. ... He returned to Hispaniola and the Taíno (Arawaks) in 1493 demanding food, gold, spun cotton and whatever else they could get from the Indians. Cooperation was ensured by a punishment system: any minor offense by an Arawak would result in a Spaniard cutting off his ears or nose only to be sent back to the village as living, breathing, bleeding example of the work expected and the brutality of which the Spaniards were capable. The Taínos began to resist by refusing to plant for the Spanish and abandoning captured towns, but over time this rebellion grew physically violent. At first, the conquistadors were victorious everywhere they marched and this led to a massive Spanish slave trade in which Columbus brought back some 500 "specimens" to work as slaves in Spain—while another 500 stayed as slaves for the crew left in the Americas. ... In 1522, a Taíno Cacique named Enriquillo waged a successful rebellion causing the Spaniards to sign a treaty granting the Indian population the rights of Freedom and of Possession. It had little consequences however, as by this time the Indian population was rapidly declining due to European diseases. Columbus used this resistance by the Indians as a reason to wage war and on March 24, 1495 the famed explorer set out to conquer this race that he had labeled "inferior" and "stupid."[citation needed] The Taíno often refused to participate in the new lifestyle being forced upon them by the Spanish which resulted in suicide. In addition, children were often killed as a perceived escape from a terrible life to come.[citation needed] Before Columbus's arrival, hundreds of thousands of people populated Hispaniola alone. By 1509, only 60,000 Taíno remained there. Although population estimates vary, Father Bartolomé de las Casas, the “Defender of the Indians” estimated that there were six million (6,000,000) Taíno in the Caribbean at the time of Columbus's arrival in 1492. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_colon...of_the_Americas Edited April 21, 2009 by tango Quote My Canada includes rights of Indigenous Peoples. Love it or leave it, eh! Peace.
Wild Bill Posted April 21, 2009 Report Posted April 21, 2009 (edited) Smallpox can be murder, if boatloads and wagonloads of infected blankets are delivered to Indigenous communities by missionaries and soldiers, as reported in Indigenous oral histories, during the 100 year conquest of the Americas - ie, throughout the 1500's. Tango, I know you don't like facts to get in the way of a politically correct prejudice but how could it have been murder? The germ theory of disease didn't even get discovered until Pasteur and others figured it out in the mid 1800's! Before that Englishmen didn't wash more than once a year for fear of catching the "flux"! The Europeans in the 1500's had no idea that blankets could spread disease. There's no way they could have deliberately used them as a biological weapon. Hell, it hadn't been that long since Europeans had figured out that semen caused pregnancy! Now you credit some some Brit or Frenchman with a dirty neck and hair in his ears with plotting to commit biological genocide on aboriginal peoples! 300 years before they even knew what a germ was! Here we go with the situational ethics again. My side is always right. The other guys are always evil. But only the OTHER guy can have racist views! This is why sometimes I just give up listening to "the left" ... Edited April 21, 2009 by Wild Bill Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
tango Posted April 21, 2009 Report Posted April 21, 2009 Tango, I know you don't like facts to get in the way of a politically correct prejudice but how could it have been murder?The germ theory of disease didn't even get discovered until Pasteur and others figured it out in the mid 1800's! Before that Englishmen didn't wash more than once a year for fear of catching the "flux"! The Europeans in the 1500's had no idea that blankets could spread disease. There's no way they could have deliberately used them as a biological weapon. Hell, it hadn't been that long since Europeans had figured out that semen caused pregnancy! Now you credit some some Brit or Frenchman with a dirty neck and hair in his ears with plotting to commit biological genocide on aboriginal peoples! 300 years before they even knew what a germ was! Here we go with the situational ethics again. My side is always right. The other guys are always evil. But only the OTHER guy can have racist views! This is why sometimes I just give up listening to "the left" ... Please read my posts. I'm talking about the Spanish/Portuguese conquest, because that's when 95% of Indigenous Peoples died. Quote My Canada includes rights of Indigenous Peoples. Love it or leave it, eh! Peace.
tango Posted April 21, 2009 Report Posted April 21, 2009 Even if true I doubt their presence was continuous. I am willing to agree that the FN's probably were the first continuous inhabitants, but I do believe that smallpox, not murder, destroyed them numerically and culturally. DNA evidence proves that they are still here, jbg, the mysterious Caucasian haplogroup x, the Mound People, among today's Indigenous Americans and Canadians. There is significant evidence that their arrival pre-dated the Asian influx across the Bering Strait. Physical evidence of the 'red-haired giants' has been hidden, destroyed and re-interpreted from early settlement days to today, but the DNA doesn't lie. Quote My Canada includes rights of Indigenous Peoples. Love it or leave it, eh! Peace.
g_bambino Posted April 21, 2009 Report Posted April 21, 2009 (edited) Please read my posts. I'm talking about the Spanish/Portuguese conquest, because that's when 95% of Indigenous Peoples died. 95% of indiginous people where? The Spanish barely set foot in what is now Canada. Gak! I got threads mixed up; there's a very similar discussion going on elsewhere. My apologies. [ed. to retract] Edited April 21, 2009 by g_bambino Quote
tango Posted April 21, 2009 Report Posted April 21, 2009 (edited) Tango, I know you don't like facts to get in the way of a politically correct prejudice but how could it have been murder?The germ theory of disease didn't even get discovered until Pasteur and others figured it out in the mid 1800's! Before that Englishmen didn't wash more than once a year for fear of catching the "flux"! The Europeans in the 1500's had no idea that blankets could spread disease. There's no way they could have deliberately used them as a biological weapon. I think this answers your questions, and there is much more information available on the net, if you are interested in investigating the history of germ warfare yourself. One of the earliest western references to this latter theory appears in On Agriculture by Marcus Terentius Varro (published in 36 BC), wherein there is a warning about locating a homestead in the proximity of swamps: "...and because there are bred certain minute creatures which cannot be seen by the eyes, which float in the air and enter the body through the mouth and nose and there cause serious diseases."[2] In The Canon of Medicine (1020), Abū Alī ibn Sīnā (Avicenna) stated that bodily secretion is contaminated by foul foreign earthly bodies before being infected.[3] He also discovered the contagious nature of tuberculosis and other infectious diseases, and introduced quarantine as a means of limiting the spread of contagious diseases.[4] When the Black Death bubonic plague reached al-Andalus in the 14th century, Ibn Khatima hypothesized that infectious diseases are caused by "minute bodies" which enter the human body and cause disease. Another 14th century Andalusian physician, Ibn al-Khatib, wrote a treatise called On the Plague, in which he stated:[3] "The existence of contagion is established by experience, investigation, the evidence of the senses and trustworthy reports. These facts constitute a sound argument. The fact of infection becomes clear to the investigator who notices how he who establishes contact with the afflicted gets the disease, whereas he who is not in contact remains safe, and how transmission is affected through garments, vessels and earrings." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory_of_disease Some of the first recorded biological terror attacks occurred in the 6th century B.C. The ancient Assyrians (whose civilization began around 2400 B.C. in modern Turkey, Iran, Syria and Iraq) poisoned enemy wells with ergot, a fungus that can grow on wheat, rye and other grains. It produces LSD-like chemicals that cause hallucinations and other symptoms. In another 6th-century biological assault, the ancient Greeks, besieging a city called Krissa, poisoned its water supply with the herb hellebore. It causes violent diarrhea. During their sieges, ancient Roman soldiers threw decaying human corpses and carcasses of dead animals into their enemies' water supplies, and catapulted them over the walls of enemy towns. A Tartar army in 1346 launched a biological assault that may have gotten out of control - big time. While besieging a city in modern-day Crimea, soldiers hurled corpses of bubonic plague victims over city walls. Fleas from the corpses infested people and rats in the city. Plague spread as people and rats escaped and fled. Some experts believe it triggered the great epidemic of bubonic plague -the "Black Death" -that swept Europe, killing 25 million people. http://www.rense.com/general16/thehistoryofgerm.htm Biological warfare has been practiced repeatedly throughout history. Before the 20th century, the use of biological agents took three major forms: * Deliberate poisoning of food and water with infectious material * Use of microorganisms, toxins or animals, living or dead, in a weapon system * Use of biologically inoculated fabrics [edit] The ancient world The earliest documented incident of the intention to use biological weapons is recorded in Hittite texts of 1500-1200 B.C, in which victims of plague were driven into enemy lands. Although the Assyrians knew of ergot, a fungus of rye with effects similar to LSD, there is no evidence that they poisoned enemy wells with ergot, as has often been claimed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_warfare Edited April 21, 2009 by tango Quote My Canada includes rights of Indigenous Peoples. Love it or leave it, eh! Peace.
lictor616 Posted April 21, 2009 Report Posted April 21, 2009 Quite jejune....I suppose then you don't believe there is such a thing as Irish culture...cause very few irish, certainly less than the total number of south americans who speak a native language, speak gaelic.......and I suppose there is no such thing as German culture, (aside from public nudity and forming human pyramids) cause no one sacrifices humans to Wottan anymore.... Irish culture does exist (and retains many points of reference), but it has largely been undermined by British and before that: Roman encroachments. The situation probably isn't quite as dire for the Irish (as a great many still retain correct and sufficiently complete knowledge of their culture and History- unlike the Venezuelans I met) but you'd be quite right in saying an "Irish Culture" today is a fairly thin read. Gaelic is a dying language. apparently speakers include: 355,000 fluent or native speakers (1983) 538,283 everyday speakers (2006) 1,860,000 with some knowledge (2006) out of 5,981,448 Irish people, and maybe 200 000 out of the 30 million Irish americans speak Gealic... smatterings of bastardized Nahuatl is still spoken by approximately 900 000 people out of hundreds of millions of south americans... a lamentable showing for both... your point? Quote -Magna Europa Est Patria Nostra-
M.Dancer Posted April 21, 2009 Report Posted April 21, 2009 Irish culture does exist (and retains many points of reference), but it has largely been undermined by British and before that: Roman encroachments. There were no roman colonies in Ireland...it's influence on ireland is less than neglible. Gaelic is a dying language. apparently speakers include: 355,000 fluent or native speakers (1983) 538,283 everyday speakers (2006) 1,860,000 with some knowledge (2006 So wiki is okay with you then? Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
tango Posted April 21, 2009 Report Posted April 21, 2009 There were no roman colonies in Ireland...it's influence on ireland is less than neglible. The introduction of Christianity to Ireland dates to sometime before the 5th century, presumably in interactions with Roman Britain. All that can be certain is that by 430, Palladius, a bishop of Britain was sent by Pope Celestine to minister to the "Scots believing in Christ." While this is evidence of Christianity existing prior to 430, nothing more may be said for certain. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholicism_in_Ireland Interesting point. Thanks. Funny how Catholicism became so entrenched there. Quote My Canada includes rights of Indigenous Peoples. Love it or leave it, eh! Peace.
M.Dancer Posted April 21, 2009 Report Posted April 21, 2009 Irish culture does exist (and retains many points of reference), but it has largely been undermined by British and before that: Roman encroachments. The situation probably isn't quite as dire for the Irish (as a great many still retain correct and sufficiently complete knowledge of their culture and History- unlike the Venezuelans I met) but you'd be quite right in saying an "Irish Culture" today is a fairly thin read. Gaelic is a dying language. apparently speakers include: 355,000 fluent or native speakers (1983) 538,283 everyday speakers (2006) 1,860,000 with some knowledge (2006) out of 5,981,448 Irish people, and maybe 200 000 out of the 30 million Irish americans speak Gealic... smatterings of bastardized Nahuatl is still spoken by approximately 900 000 people out of hundreds of millions of south americans... a lamentable showing for both... your point? Language Family Countries # speakers Quechua Quechuan Peru, Brazil, Bolivia, Argentina, Ecuador, Colombia 8.5 million Guaraní Tupí-Guaraní Paraguay 3 million Kekchí Mayan Guatemala 1.3 million Nahua Uto-Aztecan México 1.3 million Otomí Oto-Manguean México 261,000 Totonaco Totonacan México 215,000 Miskitu Misumalpan Nicaragua, Honduras 200,000 Jívaro Jívaro-Cahuapanano Ecuador, Peru 50,000 Kuna Chibchan Panama 50,000 Emberá Chocó Panama, Colombia 40,000 Ticuna Jurí-Ticuna Peru, Colombia, Brazil 21,000 http://www.ailla.utexas.org/site/la_langs.html My point is your hate filled ridiculous posts don't stand up to scutiny. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
lictor616 Posted April 21, 2009 Report Posted April 21, 2009 There were no roman colonies in Ireland...it's influence on ireland is less than neglible.So wiki is okay with you then? I used the word "apparently" when citing that Wikipedia source: its not the best of sources but for the purposes of expediency... I used a source you seemed comfortable with. and Ireland was pretty much raped by the Romans (literally) ... thousands of irish girls (being exquisitely attractive) was shipped for slavery by the romans... Quote -Magna Europa Est Patria Nostra-
M.Dancer Posted April 21, 2009 Report Posted April 21, 2009 and Ireland was pretty much raped by the Romans (literally) ... thousands of irish girls (being exquisitely attractive) was shipped for slavery by the romans... cite..... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
lictor616 Posted April 21, 2009 Report Posted April 21, 2009 http://www.ailla.utexas.org/site/la_langs.htmlMy point is your hate filled ridiculous posts don't stand up to scutiny. Quechua is hardly as indigenous as you seem to think it is. I can understand minute parts of it myself... About half of the modern Quechua vocabulary is directly borrowed from Spanish... the Quechua alphabet is (you guessed it!) Latin and contains innumerable bastardized versions Quechua from Merida venezuela for instance although called Quetchua would astonish a Peruvian Quechuan speaker. and you really have to stress how well (or rather badly) it is spoken. either way: this misses the point. Quote -Magna Europa Est Patria Nostra-
tango Posted April 21, 2009 Report Posted April 21, 2009 I know I contributed, but just a reminder that Ireland is not America, and thus not the topic of this thread. Anybody have a good argument to say there was no genocide of Indigenous Peoples in the Americas in the 1500's? Quote My Canada includes rights of Indigenous Peoples. Love it or leave it, eh! Peace.
Wild Bill Posted April 21, 2009 Report Posted April 21, 2009 I know I contributed, but just a reminder that Ireland is not America, and thus not the topic of this thread.Anybody have a good argument to say there was no genocide of Indigenous Peoples in the Americas in the 1500's? Can we include the Neutral Indians from southern Ontario? Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
tango Posted April 22, 2009 Report Posted April 22, 2009 (edited) Can we include the Neutral Indians from southern Ontario? About half of the Indigenous people in Southern Ontario died in the epidemics of the early to mid 1600's. Iroquoian peoples re-formed through warring on each other, and I believe most Neutrals were adopted by the Five Nations who, due to greater avoidance of Europeans, had lost only about 20% of their people. The Cayuga Nation adopts, so there would be Cayuga people today whose lineage would be 'Neutral' (and Huron/Wendat, and Tudelo, and others). http://hamilton.foundlocally.com/Local/Inf...toryIndians.htm By the time the European explorers and missionaries arrived in the early 1600s, the Iroquoian villages had elected chiefs and were allied within powerful tribal confederacies. The Neutral Indians were the leaders of a group of ten tribes of the Iroquois Nation. Other tribes included the Seneca, Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga, Huron, Petun, Erie and the Susquehannock. The French explorers , gave this Indian tribe the name "Neutrals", because of their position and status as peace keepers between the warring Hurons and Iroquois. Unfortunately, inter-tribal warfare was made worse by the intrusion of the Europeans. http://www.nefac.net/anarchiststudyofiroquois#beaverwars In 1634, a plague of smallpox hit the Rotinonshón:ni, halving their population (67) and forcing relocations for the entire five nations as they fled diseased villages. While already engaged in wars with multiple indigenous nations and the French, and with changes to their economy and material technology, it must have seemed an apocalyptic scenario. The Wendat and other nations were similarly affected by epidemic diseases. There were unprecedented calamities for Rotinonshón:ni and Wendat societies, and the cultural tradition of mourning war called for replacement of all the dead through warfare. While there may have been economical and cultural motivations for Rotinonshón:ni participation and prosecution of the Beaver Wars, the result was far from genocide of their opponents--rather, it was the political unification of most northern Iroquois-speaking peoples under the Kaianere'kó:wa. It bears emphasizing that, according to Wallace, "[a]doption was so frequent during the bloody centuries of the beaver wars and the colonial wars that some Iroquois villages were preponderantly composed of formally adopted war captives." (79) Adoption was as much a form of political unification of other Iroquois-speaking peoples, who already shared cultural traits, as it was cultural assimilation. Autonomous villages were common. The Beaver Wars might best be seen as bloody civil war among Iroquois-speaking people in the context of a larger series of devastating tragedies, not a genocidal conflict based on resource acquisition. Increasingly, the Beaver Wars are being referred to as the Iroquois Wars--which seems far more appropriate since the majority of the participants were Iroquois-speakers. The Neutrals ... http://faculty.marianopolis.edu/c.belanger...tralIndians.htm So the answer to your question is 'no'. Edited April 22, 2009 by tango Quote My Canada includes rights of Indigenous Peoples. Love it or leave it, eh! Peace.
benny Posted April 22, 2009 Report Posted April 22, 2009 Mercantilism was the general mindset of Europeans when they started searching for an alternative route to China. We all know now that this political and economic system was morally flawed. So, the time has come to redress the wrongs done by our ancestors. Quote
lictor616 Posted April 22, 2009 Report Posted April 22, 2009 (edited) Mercantilism was the general mindset of Europeans when they started searching for an alternative route to China. We all know now that this political and economic system was morally flawed. So, the time has come to redress the wrongs done by our ancestors. morally flawed? according to who's morality code? If we must redress the ills (either real or imagined) of our ancestors, then it is also right to reap the BENEFITS... If it is right to be ashamed of our ancestors strong arming other (and necessarily enemy) peoples for their resources, then perhaps we can feel pride and joy at the knowledge that ours is the ONLY people to outlaw slavery, to produce in incomparable literature of romance and vicarious experiences, and producing an immensely ingenious science. sorry then, the Euro-bashers and haters of the West, must take the bitter with the sweet. also what would be "redressing the wrongs"? Sending all of the decedents of the blacks slaves now squatting in America and the Caribbean on homebound ships for africa? Should we recapture our medical knowledge ? dismantle our hospitals everywhere in the non-western globe? Take back our cars, our computers, our tools? Edited April 22, 2009 by lictor616 Quote -Magna Europa Est Patria Nostra-
benny Posted April 22, 2009 Report Posted April 22, 2009 (edited) morally flawed? according to who's morality code? If we must redress the ills (either real or imagined) of our ancestors, then it is also right to reap the BENEFITS... If it is right to be ashamed of our ancestors strong arming other (and necessarily enemy) peoples for their resources, then perhaps we can feel pride and joy at the knowledge that ours is the ONLY people to outlaw slavery, to produce in incomparable literature of romance and vicarious experiences, and producing an immensely ingenious science. sorry then, the Euro-bashers and haters of the West, must take the bitter with the sweet. also what would be "redressing the wrongs"? Sending all of the decedents of the blacks slaves now squatting in America and the Caribbean on homebound ships for africa? Should we recapture our medical knowledge ? dismantle our hospitals everywhere in the non-western globe? Take back our cars, our computers, our tools? We are all speaking inside the mindset of liberal democracies. John Locke is the philosopher who has instigated the transition from mercantilism (a negative-sum game) towards liberalism (positive-sum game). So redressing past ills now can only mean contracting a new sharing collective agreement about the costs and benefits of social cooperation. Only when we will have a new social contract will we be able to morally evaluate the outlawing of slavery, scientific prowesses, etc. Edited April 22, 2009 by benny Quote
lictor616 Posted April 22, 2009 Report Posted April 22, 2009 We are all speaking inside the mindset of liberal democracies. John Locke is the philosopher who has instigated the transition from mercantilism (a negative-sum game) towards liberalism (positive-sum game). So redressing past ills now can only mean contracting a new sharing collective agreement about the costs and benefits of social cooperation. Only when we will have a new social contract will we be able to morally evaluate the outlawing of slavery, scientific prowesses, etc. no we are not all "speaking form a mindset of liberal democracies". and the preference for mercantilism began to lessen in the late 18th century, as the arguments of Adam Smith began to gain precedence... before him, David Hume was probably the real "INSTIGATOR" rather. so your implication is that the very real efforts made by the abolitionists and countless other Europeans to outlaw slavery WORLDWIDE (mind you) is nothing important? And a "new social contract" will validate our science? what are you even on about? Quote -Magna Europa Est Patria Nostra-
tango Posted April 22, 2009 Report Posted April 22, 2009 (edited) Mercantilism was the general mindset of Europeans when they started searching for an alternative route to China. We all know now that this political and economic system was morally flawed. So, the time has come to redress the wrongs done by our ancestors. "Redress" is not my area, but I think all Canadians should know the real facts. And the fact is that there were pretty much only explorers and military and traders throughout in North and South America in the 1500's, a hundred years of "conquest", and before settlers and colonies came about, the 95% genocide was already over. Interesting factoid ... the 'Red Ensign' of Canada is the flag of the British MERCHANT marine. Edited April 22, 2009 by tango Quote My Canada includes rights of Indigenous Peoples. Love it or leave it, eh! Peace.
benny Posted April 22, 2009 Report Posted April 22, 2009 no we are not all "speaking form a mindset of liberal democracies". and the preference for mercantilism began to lessen in the late 18th century, as the arguments of Adam Smith began to gain precedence... before him, David Hume was probably the real "INSTIGATOR" rather. so your implication is that the very real efforts made by the abolitionists and countless other Europeans to outlaw slavery WORLDWIDE (mind you) is nothing important? And a "new social contract" will validate our science? what are you even on about? - Liberalism is right now the only mindset that can be understood widely allowing humanity to escape raw violence. - Freedom for most is merely a formal abstraction and science highest achievement is only a suggestion that AGW is real. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.