A) As I said, Lance aux Meadows... 2) Oddly enough, the continent would still be here. There would be no United States of America...there might be a Canada ( as it's a native term)...but what makes you think that the world is assuredly better because of the presence of a Euro-colonized America? It can be argued, assuredly, but it can also be argued that the century in which we have seen the emergence of America, American industrialism, etc. is also, far and away, the century which has seen more killing than any other 5 centuries combined. We have seen the invention and use of a weapn which could instantaneously eliminate the human race. We have done more systemic and lasting environmental damage to the planet than had occured throughout human history up till now, and have significantly increased and sustained our dependance on finite natural resources. Our popular culture has collectively lowered attention spans, mental discipline ( accute and sustained ), reading comprehension, and the seperation of art and commerce. On the other hand we have seen an increased globalization of identity and commerce, extreme advances in medicine and other life sustaining advances, better standardization of safety standards, the exportation of the idea, if not the practice, of representative government, and the idea of individual civil rights. I am not saying that there is not an argument that the world is better for the emergence of America, but people act as though it's a given, merely because we are the most powerful. It's probably conclusive that Americans living in America are better off for it, aside from natives, but beyond that there is a great deal to be said for the argument that the century which has seen the most carnage and destruction in humna history didn't coincide with the emergence of euro-colonized American influence, innovation, and power out of mere coincidence.
DD... Do me a favor...please...read the transcripts from the Nuremberg trials, including the judicial statements at closing.
A) So does the ends justify the means? If so, why did we interfere with Nazi Germany? Have you ever taken a look at the ends Hitler accomplished? Considering time frame, starting position and emergence point, it makes the development of the US look like an underachiever. EIther ends justify means, or they don't. It can't be one when it's you, and another when it's the other guy. B) Greatest country in the world? Most powerful, certainly...but greatest? I am sure that you have an Americanized list of standards by which you can claim that title, and you are entitled to them, but do you even recognize that there are also several other viable standards according to which the United States is extremely wanting compared to other nations? C) "The destruction of certain civilizations and the replacement of them by superior ones is a natural part of the world order." Ay...painful to know that people actually think this way. Superior people now? I swear, read My Struggle...seriously, and I'm not just saying this to be confrontational, you would find a lot that you agree with..actually, other than who is and who is not superior, you might agree down the line. And if, by natural order, you are making reference to Darwinis, evolution, etc...you clearly don't understand it; It has nothing whatsoever to do with superior vs. inferior. There is no natural oreder which supports the theory that superior lasts, only most adapted to the environment;ie if there were a nuclear war, the survival would go to the cockroaches, as they would adapt the most readily...would that make them superior to humans? D) "Does anyone cry for the Hittites, Sumerians, Babylonians, ancient Egyptians and Phonecians who were largely wiped out by means of war and absorption into the conquering population?" The Hittites were wiped out...by war. The entire basis for their emergence was their ( at the time fairly unique) discovery of the secret of smelting iron...once other nations learned that secret, the Hittites were destroyed, utterly, largely in response to the way they excercised their power...so, yes, people of the time DID cry about the Hittites. Who did the Sumerians conquer? They were an originally loose confederation of cities in the Mesopotamisn region which gained power by virtue of consolidating that region under the auspices of a nuclear power, and excerices that pwoer largely in defending their territory against nomadic invaders. The Babyloninas were decried...yes...but not as much as the Assyrians which replaced them. Aside from a period of control of the Levant, Egypt was almost entirely isolationist throughout it's entire history. Almost all of their miltary efforts, whether against the Ku****es, the Sea Peoples, the Hyksos, or the Numidians was defensive. Considering that they lasted for thousands of years, and 'conquered' very little, it would have been hard to think fo a worse example for your point.
What are you talking about? We have been arguing against the abuse of ower from day one. Where have you been? To recall: the Conquistadors, for example, cited local barbarism as justification for their actions; invading less powerful nations rich in resources inportant to the Spanish and taking control of the area. It is exactly that kind of action...with that kind of empty argument justifying it...that we have been objecting to seince the beginning.
You're missing my point on this. The strong will always triumph over the week. Civilizations come and go. And eventually, we will fall, not from outside, but from within. Our civilization was much stronger than the Indians, so that is why the Indians are no more except on reservations and in history books. Did they deserve the treatment they got? Of course not. But that's life. Like my football coach always used to say that all things being equal, the team with the best athletes usually wins. Well, in a clash of civilizations, the best technology utilized properly always wins. The Indians had no technology or poor usage of it and thus they are consigned to the dustbin of history. And would you pass up all the advances and luxuries we enjoy today just to have Columbus have decided not to undertake his voyage? I kind of like this country and what we have here. I like the fact that a nice house and land are available for me to own without a nobleman's title. I'm glad that my hard work and sacrifice are rewarded everyday. I guess to answer your question, in that particular instance of the colonization of America, the ends do justify the means. Armchairquarterbacking what happened hundreds of years ago is just a pointless gesture.
Asked by Macbeth: " So does the ends justify the means?...Either ends justify means, or they don't...It can't be one when it's you, and another when it's the other guy. " Answered by bama: " I guess to answer your question, in that particular instance of the colonization of America, the ends do justify the means. " 'nuff said
1/4 Grandmother was full blood, father half....me 1/4. Which qualifies me for over $2000 a month from the tribes casino haul, of which I decline to take as there are others that need it worse than I. DD
No no no.... I am saying that the point about Columbus is mute being that it is so old. What I AM saying is that most of you argued against taking out Saddam and he was doing the SAME HORRID things that you are saying Columbus did. Don't you find that a bit contradictory? DD
Could you not still take it and donate it for purposes you deem worthy? Or would that have negative tax effects? That way, you could make sure that that money goes into something other than improving a blackjack table...
Iraq was a sovereign nation with a dictator committing atrocities on his own people, an internal affair. Columbus caused the invasion of sovereign nations and brought death, slavery, and disease. It's hardly contradictory at all. What would be contradictory would be your supporting an invasion of Iraq on humanitarian terms and not supporting the overthrow of every single tyrant in the world.
I guess the big deal is. . . . There is no reason to Dance on their graves either Columbus was doofus not worthy of being celebrate IF HE KNEW he dscovered a new continent I may Cut for him . .. but he died thinking he was visiting India.. . . Rocket River Columbus just has some good marketing folx or something
