Manifest Destiny

[Qfwfq]

And you don't call:

As to your specific example- well, yes it was necessary for a white civilisation to dominate the americas. Had there been no indian genocide, much of the continent would still be under their control, and the white dominated area would not be nearly as strong as it is now.

a racist point of view?

 

Why was it "necessary"? Why would it be wrong for the white control of the continent to be less strong? This is a forum on history, you can say that this didn't happen, that things went otherwise, stating facts, but the above statement of necessity has no grounds but racism, that I can see.

 

I granted the benefit of doubt, only because it was followed immediately by:

Does that mean it was a desirable thing? Certainly not.

and so might have been only a line of argument, but if you deny it being racist you should watch out. Such things aren't welcome here.

[Panjandrum]

You are continuing to misconstrue what I have said. I am attempting to present a Social Darwinistic arguament, not a moral one. In terms of SD, the entier purpose of cultural conflict is for one culture to dominate to as great an exent as possible the other. In these terms, it is indeed necessary for one culture to take whatever opportunity it is presented with to destroy a rival culture. If you find the specific topic of Manifest Destiny, about which this thread was created, too 'rascist' to tolerate, I would point out the cultural spread of the Han chinese culture, which has similarly obliterated all its rivals.

[Turtle]

I am not talking in terms of morality. moral issues are irrelevant when dicussing a matter in terms of Social Darwinism. Whever I consider this genocide to be moral or not is beside the point.

 

 

 

Every single treaty made between the US government and the idnian tribes was broken, almost always by the US. I would say that the total faliure of such a policy does indeed indicate that it was the wrong one. Good intetions are all well and good, but it is results that matter.

 

Applying the social darwinism approach to North America before Europeans arrive we find the local residents warring with one another to the best of their abilities, i.e. technology & numbers. They also displayed "moral" behavior in an effort to curb the violence as in the Iroquois Confederacy (Haudenosaunee, also known as the League of Peace and Power, Five Nations, or Six Nations) .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iroquois

Inasmuch as things never get worse than war & survival, things must only get better.:(

:)

[Qfwfq]

Applying the social darwinism approach to North America before Europeans arrive we find the local residents warring with one another to the best of their abilities, i.e. technology & numbers.

This isn't a demonstration of SD.

 

Ever since there have been tribes competing and fighting each other, yes, certainly, they have outsmarted each other when possible. This includes any innovation in weapons, as much as the Trojan horse or whatever deception. Quite correct, true. But the dogma of Manifest Destiny was more than just exploiting advantages and SD was downright pseudoscientific.

 

In ancient times the mentality was quite simple, the victor took possesion of the defeated, it was a natural right to take them slaves, if they so chose, and this was the source of slaves. With the Enlightenment, people in the West had become adverse to men enslaving men, considering the doctrine that all men are born equal and that freedom is a right. This brought the necessity of another pseudoscientific excuse, the claim of genetic inferiority of Black Africans, by which many were persuaded that it was alright to enslave them, just as much as it was to break a horse to saddle or yoke. The chronology of this doesn't quite fit in with some claims here upstream, about the views of the time.

[Qfwfq]

You are continuing to misconstrue what I have said. I am attempting to present a Social Darwinistic arguament, not a moral one.

You have claimed it to be scientific and, in this and other ways, mildly displayed personal support of it but keeping ways to wiggle out. I am not failing to distinguish between this and statment of historic fact.

 

You certainly haven't been successful in refuting my argument as to that propaganda being pseudoscientific, you have only thrown sand into eyes. The notion of memes applies to debate of any kind, artistic and literary trends, fashion and so on; it doesn't require destruction of the material medium of the memes. You can remove a computer virus by deleting or replacing the infected file, at the worst you might format disk and reinstall. You don't need to incinerate the computer.

[UncleAl]

the right of our manifest destiny to over spread and to possess the whole of the continent

Damned straight. The US should rule from the North Pole to Guatemala having exterminated all indigenes. Consider how such a world would have evolved compared to Canada and Mexico today.

 

If you discover them, they are in trouble. If they discover you you are in trouble. The first battle of Spanish vs. Incas, about 100 vs. 2000 soldiers respectively, resulted in no Spanish killed and 1200 dead Incas. The Spanish had trained horses, Damascus steel rapiers, crude guns, a carnivorous god, and greed on their side. Incas had no labor animals, Bronze Age technology, and sacred native Armerindian culture. Just another day at the office for Spanish psychotic felons making the world safe for their children.

 

Winners never apologize and the dead never complain.

[Qfwfq]

Now that's infallible, inescapable logic. The ground for "The US should rule from the North Pole to Guatemala having exterminated all indigenes." is that the Spanish were far superior to the natives. In order to justiy it, shouldn't the US have exterminated all indigens and conquered the whole place, instead of leaving centre and south to the Latinos and the north to the English?

 

If you have a point that's actually about History, you are welcome to make it.

[Ananke]

Whats not to get? He makes a perfectly valid SD argument. The strong prevail, and the weak should just stfu and accept it. Its only because we have developed lies such as tolerance and compassion that you find this position unpalatable, but the fact is that if youre ancestors had not been utterly ruthless, you wouldnt be here to sneer at their barbarity.

[Qfwfq]

That isn't the point Ananke.

 

Aggressivity can be, at least in part, genetically determined. It is a matter of Darwinism and not SD that it may bring more or less survival success, according to circumstances.

 

SD argues about things which are not biologically hereditary, so it doesn't match up with the principles of evolution as far as survival goes. If one talks instead about "memes" then it is a matter detatched from biological survival, you can change your ideas, you can learn, you can accept or appreciate another culture, even many times over, in the same lifetime. A different biological individual isn't necessary in order to have different memes.

 

Without this being clear, one runs into fallacious argument and paralogism, trying to apply one thing to another.

[pgrmdave]

The strong prevail, and the weak should just stfu and accept it. Its only because we have developed lies such as tolerance and compassion that you find this position unpalatable

 

How nonSD of you. Since the strongest civilizations are more tolerant and compassionate, it is very darwinistic to agree that tolerance and compassion are important, necessary qualities in any large civilization.

[Qfwfq]

Indeed, our species is social because we have evolved to be so and it is in our genes, just as aggressivity is. This may be enhanced or not by culture but examples such as the Spartans have been rare, communities learn that a tightly knit society survives better and that a cripple baby might grow up to be a Hawking.

 

It remains though that the cultural aspects don't have the same rigid mechanism of reproduction and so evolution of the two things occur in totally different manners, it is pointless to apply the same rules to them if one wants to understand and describe how they progress.