[001]
Solipsi
Current Version
Changed line(s) 5 from:
n
I won\'t even argue that the natives have an axiom right for the land just because they were there first; the land belongs to everyone, any sort of ownership leads to violence and war. But; the coercion of their status-quo upon the indigenous was the violation of their right as free people; they trampled upon a location without any regard to it\'s natives; and did not even attempt to renegotiate. Everyone wanted their own way to happen and just said to one and another : \
to:
I won\\\'t even argue that the natives have an axiom right for the land just because they were there first; the land belongs to everyone, any sort of ownership leads to violence and war. But; the coercion of their status-quo upon the indigenous was the violation of their right as free people; they trampled upon a location without any regard to it\\\'s natives; and did not even attempt to renegotiate. Everyone wanted their own way to happen and just said to one and another : \\\"Fuck you, I am right and you are wrong\\\".
So how did they solve this violent conflict?
Not by realizing everyone has the right to live and prosper within their own rights, and thus live together in harmony(not in the abstract); they fought and fought until one party basically offered something which apparently, made them completely change their mind. This is no peace-summit, it\\\'s a yard sale of ideals.
Now, the thing is; why did this conflict derail to violence?
*Because the Settlers would not respect anyone but themselves, and told the indigenous folk to get lost.
**Which forced the indigenous folk to resort to violence in order to maintain their long-line of life-style instead of peaceful approach
***Which lead to an all ought war of interests between two groups which were so obstinate, so inert, they could not see themselves outside of their way of living they thought it was worth dying for.
But then, the indigenous folk gave up on a part of who they are because the settlers had materials which apparently values alot more than one\\\'s religion and traditions.
If you managed to catch my drift, I\\\'m saying everyone is at fault. But as history tells us, the settlers are by far alot worse. And somehow, due to some nerve, this show portrays the settlers as the good guys. (They merely want to protect their harvest against exterior forces! They want to survive! It\\\'s not like THEY were the one who invaded, pillaged and assaulted an entire continent-worth of people)
I don\\\'t even see this as the evolution of ideas by exchanging one for an other, it\\\'s like saying that when a church over-collects taxes from the people it\\\'s fine and even virtuous for the greed of the priests; they merely replaced their religion with a way of dominance upon other people. Is it bad? Is it good? I sure wonder.
P.S: Here\\\'s a thought exercise: You are living in a modern world, the current status-quo is of the democratic-libertarians. Your environment believes in the freedom of speech and action, yet also believe that when stepped out of line; the state has the right to apply violence against their people in any fashion they see fit. A legitimized mafia. Your environment believes in the right of freedom and or equality; so they ensure it by collecting taxes from the people, if you don\\\'t pay the paycheck raping fees; policeman visit your doorstep as a criminal and coerce you to give up every right you \\\"had\\\" by incarcerating you.
Now, the \\\"evolution of ideas\\\" of this scenario, would be to diminish the violence part, no? One would say a true free society would be one without a violent governing body. If I would tell you now, in face of the current status-quo; that I support Anarchy against Democracy, how would you react?
I am positive you would react with contempt and rejection; any sort of notion against your status-quo which you lived all of your life in would be horrendous. Who is this great evil who comes in and changes my way of life? Or who is this great good who comes in and elevates my way of life in a fashion which is outside of my point of view? Which one is more realistic?
I\\\'m saying all of that because your comment seems to be driven by self-interest, you speak out of your own perspective that how you currently live is by far alot more better than how the Indigenous had have lived; and that change we brought upon them was for the better.
So how did they solve this violent conflict?
Not by realizing everyone has the right to live and prosper within their own rights, and thus live together in harmony(not in the abstract); they fought and fought until one party basically offered something which apparently, made them completely change their mind. This is no peace-summit, it\\\'s a yard sale of ideals.
Now, the thing is; why did this conflict derail to violence?
*Because the Settlers would not respect anyone but themselves, and told the indigenous folk to get lost.
**Which forced the indigenous folk to resort to violence in order to maintain their long-line of life-style instead of peaceful approach
***Which lead to an all ought war of interests between two groups which were so obstinate, so inert, they could not see themselves outside of their way of living they thought it was worth dying for.
But then, the indigenous folk gave up on a part of who they are because the settlers had materials which apparently values alot more than one\\\'s religion and traditions.
If you managed to catch my drift, I\\\'m saying everyone is at fault. But as history tells us, the settlers are by far alot worse. And somehow, due to some nerve, this show portrays the settlers as the good guys. (They merely want to protect their harvest against exterior forces! They want to survive! It\\\'s not like THEY were the one who invaded, pillaged and assaulted an entire continent-worth of people)
I don\\\'t even see this as the evolution of ideas by exchanging one for an other, it\\\'s like saying that when a church over-collects taxes from the people it\\\'s fine and even virtuous for the greed of the priests; they merely replaced their religion with a way of dominance upon other people. Is it bad? Is it good? I sure wonder.
P.S: Here\\\'s a thought exercise: You are living in a modern world, the current status-quo is of the democratic-libertarians. Your environment believes in the freedom of speech and action, yet also believe that when stepped out of line; the state has the right to apply violence against their people in any fashion they see fit. A legitimized mafia. Your environment believes in the right of freedom and or equality; so they ensure it by collecting taxes from the people, if you don\\\'t pay the paycheck raping fees; policeman visit your doorstep as a criminal and coerce you to give up every right you \\\"had\\\" by incarcerating you.
Now, the \\\"evolution of ideas\\\" of this scenario, would be to diminish the violence part, no? One would say a true free society would be one without a violent governing body. If I would tell you now, in face of the current status-quo; that I support Anarchy against Democracy, how would you react?
I am positive you would react with contempt and rejection; any sort of notion against your status-quo which you lived all of your life in would be horrendous. Who is this great evil who comes in and changes my way of life? Or who is this great good who comes in and elevates my way of life in a fashion which is outside of my point of view? Which one is more realistic?
I\\\'m saying all of that because your comment seems to be driven by self-interest, you speak out of your own perspective that how you currently live is by far alot more better than how the Indigenous had have lived; and that change we brought upon them was for the better.
