[ExI] Religious Idiocy Triumphs Over Science Yet Again

[William Flynn Wallace]

On Sat, Dec 5, 2015 at 11:05 PM, Dan TheBookMan <danust2012 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Dec 5, 2558 BE, at 6:33 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki <
> rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 5, 2015 at 7:28 PM, Dan TheBookMan <danust2012 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Dec 5, 2558 BE, at 4:19 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki <
>> rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> ### Guilt over Indians is unjustified. They were violent, frequently
>> enough cannibalistic, ignorant, ignoble and their plight is of their own
>> doing.
>>
>>
>> I disagree. They were wiped out by disease and conquest. Not every last
>> one of them, especially their children, deserved that. The cases in the US
>> where they tried to live peacefully with Whites, but then were massacred.
>>
>
> ### I don't believe it. Indians as a rule did not live peacefully with
> their neighbors, regardless of race or creed. Existing primitive tribes are
> warlike, treacherous, and virulently xenophobic. The Amerind were the same,
> regardless of what a century of whitewashing tried to tell us. And not
> every last was wiped out - in fact, the ones who were peaceful enough and
> willing to learn from whites, contributed to our society. Just ask Sen.
> Warren.
>
>
> I think you're using this as an excuse. Whites, likewise, warred with each
> other, including, for the US, its Civil War, which was brutal in the
> extreme. Some American Indians did get along with Whites and lived
> peacefully. They had treaties, for instance. But these were, as a rule,
> violated by the US government.
>
> I specifically brought up the example of the Sand Creek Massacre because
> that's exactly what it was: a massacre by the US military.
>
> I'm a little shocked here. Can you imagine aliens landing on Earth and
> perhaps massacring humans based on the same arguments you're making: humans
> fight amongst themselves, so anything done to them is fine? And, oh, it'd
> be fine as long as they didn't wipe out all humans, but left a tiny
> fraction alive, which they herded into the least desirable locations -- in
> order for their kind to take the best land?
>
> And this has nothing to do with whitewashing. I completely agree there
> were warlike tribes and individuals. That's not an valid justification for
> anything goes against all of them. It doesn't give a carte blanche on war.
>
> And this has nothing to do with respect for their religions, which I
> freely urinate, vomit,  and defecate upon. (That goes for all your
> religions.) People have rights; that's what I respect.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dan
>

​In my opinion, all of this has nothing to do with the qualities and
character of the aborigines.  However bad they may have been, they did not
deserve to be moved at will, have their lands confiscated, and their
peoples slaughtered.

It has to do with what the white men did, and that was often, even
consistently, morally unjustifiable​

​.  ​bill w

  Sample my Kindle books via:
> http://author.to/DanUst
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20151206/f10403cf/attachment.html>