Debates
04 Jan 08
04 Jan 08
...for the invader to become the native people?
Does it depend where you're born? If I go conquer a country, father a child there with my foreign wife, pillage the country for my personal benefit and then set my son up as dictator with his inherited wealth...
Is it reasonable for that dictator son of mine fight to defend what is his, even though it was taken from someone else last generation?
How does this apply to the USA, Israel, the Anglo-Saxon and Norman invasions of Britain, Ireland, and other nations that arose from the brutal power of an invading and conquering group of people?
04 Jan 08
Originally posted by AThousandYoungExcellent question! I'm sure the descendants of the Dutch and English in South Africa consider themselves to be South African. The people I know from Mexico don't consider themselves to be transplanted Spaniards and don't relate to Spain at all beyond linguistic similarities. And what about subsequent immigrants? One side of my family arrived in the 1900s; how responsible are they for what happened here while their own ancestors were duking it out in Sicily?
...for the invader to become the native people?
Does it depend where you're born? If I go conquer a country, father a child there with my foreign wife, pillage the country for my personal benefit and then set my son up as dictator with his inherited wealth...
Is it reasonable for that dictator son of mine fight to defend what is his, even though ...[text shortened]... d other nations that arose from the brutal power of an invading and conquering group of people?
I think people will defend whatever they consider to be their home, regardless of whose home it was at any point in the past. But keep in mind that your son will be loathed and possibly overthrown and reviled by history and considered an outsider for generations to come. But if you had tons of people intermarrying and weren't such an evil despot then at some point the intermarriage as well as your natural benevolence would start blurring some of the lines so that at some point there would be no "us vs. them" but an intermingled culture.
I think.
04 Jan 08
Originally posted by pawnhandlerIt sounds like it requires mutual respect, intermingling and other liberal hippy nonsense for it to happen.
Excellent question! I'm sure the descendants of the Dutch and English in South Africa consider themselves to be South African. The people I know from Mexico don't consider themselves to be transplanted Spaniards and don't relate to Spain at all beyond linguistic similarities. And what about subsequent immigrants? One side of my family arrived in the ...[text shortened]... hat at some point there would be no "us vs. them" but an intermingled culture.
I think.
But what about when a former population claims rights to the land? If here's no hippy love fest, but rather one group booting out another? Who's in the right? The new natives, born of conquerors, or new "liberators", born of former natives?
04 Jan 08
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI am just as much as an Native American as Geronimo, Sitting Bull, Chief Joseph, etc. etc.
...for the invader to become the native people?
Does it depend where you're born? If I go conquer a country, father a child there with my foreign wife, pillage the country for my personal benefit and then set my son up as dictator with his inherited wealth...
Is it reasonable for that dictator son of mine fight to defend what is his, even though ...[text shortened]... d other nations that arose from the brutal power of an invading and conquering group of people?
04 Jan 08
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIn any hypothetical proposition, don't forget to view it in terms of "the cultural norm of that time".
...for the invader to become the native people?
Does it depend where you're born? If I go conquer a country, father a child there with my foreign wife, pillage the country for my personal benefit and then set my son up as dictator with his inherited wealth...
Is it reasonable for that dictator son of mine fight to defend what is his, even though ...[text shortened]... d other nations that arose from the brutal power of an invading and conquering group of people?
We are a rather brutal, tribal species. It was expected that all conquering people would kill all of the conquered and use them up to death as slaves until about the 14th century.
Things have changed. The cultural norm evolved into "Lands gained through honorable war are honorably owned" to "Lands gained through war are not honorably owned" to "all war is immoral".
The thing is, that there still isn't a UNIFIED culture on earth. We instinctively give the Burmese murdering thugs a pass because we see that they are just the tail end of a failed experiment, ie, communism.
The same is true of our "hide your eyes you nasty monkeys" when we watch China take over Tibet. We somehow... give them a pass CULTURALLY because they (Chinese slavers) are seen to be primitive savages trapped in silly utopian world views.
http://www.shufflevideo.tv/item/W72KNBH6KBTT65GD
YOUTUBE has some other video.
The only good (ironic cynicism there, for the naive) news is that they do MOST of their killing out of public view. This is easily accomplished with secret police in the night and dungeons in deep places with extremely thick walls. (for our commie friends, that is known as a poetic metaphor for the real world) Ahem.
So what will happen to the cultural norm as regards war and lands?
I don't know. I expect that one day we won't be able to build new domiciles because that land is owned by a ground squirrel. But I'm a natural born pessimist.
My question to the pseudo-lib left is "Why does China get a free pass on their wars for land? And when it comes time to grab Taiwan, why will you be in support of the murdering commies?"
04 Jan 08
Originally posted by AThousandYoungHow long is a piece of string?
...for the invader to become the native people?
Does it depend where you're born? If I go conquer a country, father a child there with my foreign wife, pillage the country for my personal benefit and then set my son up as dictator with his inherited wealth...
Is it reasonable for that dictator son of mine fight to defend what is his, even though ...[text shortened]... d other nations that arose from the brutal power of an invading and conquering group of people?
05 Jan 08
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIt takes as long as is required to get the natives to submit.
...for the invader to become the native people?
Does it depend where you're born? If I go conquer a country, father a child there with my foreign wife, pillage the country for my personal benefit and then set my son up as dictator with his inherited wealth...
Is it reasonable for that dictator son of mine fight to defend what is his, even though ...[text shortened]... d other nations that arose from the brutal power of an invading and conquering group of people?
05 Jan 08
1 edit
Originally posted by MerkOr, they invade the natives in an adjacent territory.
It takes as long as is required to get the natives to submit.
The Goth invasion of the Roman Empire was a roll-on effect of the Hun invasion of Goth territory. And, in a sense, the colonisation of the New World was a delayed roll-on of that. But now the planet's full and all, where'd we roll on to next? Nature's way's been stymied...Eat the rich?
05 Jan 08
Originally posted by Bosse de NageJust the opposite. Eliminate the poor.
Or, they invade the natives in an adjacent territory.
The Goth invasion of the Roman Empire was a roll-on effect of the Hun invasion of Goth territory. And, in a sense, the colonisation of the New World was a delayed roll-on of that. But now the planet's full and all, where'd we roll on to next? Nature's way's been stymied...Eat the rich?