Shrewman brings up an awful lot of valid points about America's checkered past. Example: Our treatment of those that lived on this continent prior to the arrival of the "discoverers."
It begs the question:
How long, should any nation, any people be responsible for the misgivings of those from within that lived or died long ago?
-***an is rebuilding a military.
-The word "reparations" has been used by a variety of those whose people died long, long ago.
-Israel today vs the Israel of the past.
-American involvement with countries that were "friends" and are now "enemies."
I have stated this before. It is something that would have happened eventually. The evolution of knowledge just happened to expand from the MidEast through Europe. And they happened to evolve Ships that sailed great distances.
Isn't it amazing that the three evolutions, humans, knowledge, and religion happened to evolve in and around NE Africa?????????????
Think about it............
And that religion is the one with great disparity but similiar thoughts??????????????????
How long, should any nation, any people be responsible for the misgivings of those from within that lived or died long ago?
Very simple, so long as they continue to point to America's past, as a way to justify their actions today, I , for one, will be right there to point out their hypocrisy.
If someone wants to argue that immigrants should have to submit to the existing "American culture", I will ask them if they felt the same way wrt the immigrants who came to North America, when it was occupied by people of non European culture. In other words, if immigrants coming here should adapt "American culture", how come the Europeans did not adapt Native culture???
How long, should any nation, any people be responsible for the misgivings of those from within that lived or died long ago?
That is an excellent question, and I'll take it step further.
Should one race have to pay the reparations to another, even though there are members of both races whose ancestors were not involved in any fashion? For instance, whites are blamed for slavery, even though there were white slaves, whites that didn't own slaves, blacks that were not slaves, and blacks that owned slaves. In all fairness, if reparations are to be made, those who make claims should have to prove their direct ancestors were slaves, and reparations be paid by the decendants of those who owned them and the decendents of the tribes that sold them into slavery to begin with. Also it's a fact that some Indian tribes warred with others and made prisoners into slaves--should they not have to do the same? Those whose families immigrated after the fact and/or whose families were never involved on one side or the other, shouldn't be held accountable or reap benefits from something their ancestors were never involved in, right? What about those who have ancestors from both sides--should they pay reparations to themselves?
My guess is that anyone, if they traced their lineage back far enough, would find they have ancestors that were mistreated, and ancestors that mistreated others. There are families that started out with nothing and became rich, there are families that started out rich and wound up with nothing. What my ancestors experienced--whether the instigator or the victim--has no bearing on the individual that I am. I don't owe anyone, and there is nobody that owes me. My success or failure is not dependant on someone who died 100 years ago.
Chad
__________________
"We can have no '50-50' allegiance in this country. Either a man is an American and nothing else, or he is not an American at all."-- Theodore Roosevelt
A wise man's heart is at his right hand; but a fool's heart at his left. Ecclesiasties 10:2
The last four letters in American..........I Can
The last four letters in Republican........I Can
The last four letters in Democrats.........Rats
If someone wants to argue that immigrants should have to submit to the existing "American culture", I will ask them if they felt the same way wrt the immigrants who came to North America, when it was occupied by people of non European culture.
And this is precisely the type of question/assertion that I find interesting. It presumes that the past is the present, that ideals are timeless, that we are who we were.
Shrew, your stance does not account for the fact that this was a region, not a nation. There were hundreds of cultures, not one. The people that came here, found and/or recognized no law upon arrival, and behaved lawlessly as a result.
As I understand it, from that mess, a nation eventually emerged, with order, law, a constitution, etc. That is the culture to which people in America refer, not the status of what was hundreds of years ago.
VC, while there was no Continental Nation, there were nations, ie Cherokee, Iroquis, Delaware, ect.......at the time of European arrival. These Nations had established law , customs, language, ceromony, travel routes, and hunting lands.
Just because their law, and customs were not recognized, does not mean that they did not exist. In fact, the Iroquis nation had a very organized form of law, and order. Also, just because there were numerous nations within North, and South America , does not mean that they were any less viable, than one huge nation.
America's Checkered Past.......
