J
JewishCatholic
Guest
Why do we always forget the American Indians?
- Status
T
twf
Guest
Except those “natural rights” applied only to white Protestant males. Women, Jews, Catholics, natives, and especially Blacks, of course, were treated far worse than the colonists had been treated by Britain. It was a white gentleman’s war.
P
PolarGuy
Guest
Actually, I don’t forget the Native Americans. I try to give them lots of airplay…
…if only to remind people how truly awful they sometimes were!
There is a view, circa 2016, that the Native Americans were peace-loving peoples who were horribly mistreated and killed by Europeans. This view is largely false: The Native Americans, among others, often engaged in acts of unspeakable cruelty and horror to European settlers, often unprompted by people who meant them no harm.
Don’t believe me? Try reading an honest account of, say, what the Indians did to St. Isaac Jogues and his French compatriots in what is now upstate NY. You probably won’t get past “the Indians gnawed the Frenchmens’ thumbs off then pulled their tendons out through the gnawed-off stumps.”
Did Europeans commit bad acts? Sure. Were the Indians peacelovers who never harmed a soul? Nope. Far from it.
…if only to remind people how truly awful they sometimes were!
There is a view, circa 2016, that the Native Americans were peace-loving peoples who were horribly mistreated and killed by Europeans. This view is largely false: The Native Americans, among others, often engaged in acts of unspeakable cruelty and horror to European settlers, often unprompted by people who meant them no harm.
Don’t believe me? Try reading an honest account of, say, what the Indians did to St. Isaac Jogues and his French compatriots in what is now upstate NY. You probably won’t get past “the Indians gnawed the Frenchmens’ thumbs off then pulled their tendons out through the gnawed-off stumps.”
Did Europeans commit bad acts? Sure. Were the Indians peacelovers who never harmed a soul? Nope. Far from it.
T
twf
Guest
And the Americans didn’t turn around and do the same thing? The American expansion across the continent was very imperialistic and often brutal to the native peoples. America later had its own share of colonies too - such as Puerto Rico or the Philippines.
T
twf
Guest
Really? America simply extended the vote to white Protestant landlords…a step in the right direction…but it would take another 150 years or so before women, blacks, Indians, etc. have equal rights. Britain was hardly an absolute monarchy at this time. A certain segment of the British population (the elite) voted and were represented in Parliament. Both Britain and America were oligarchies ruled by white men - before and after the Revolution.
Regarding Britain’s status as a monarchy, even late 18th century Britain was far from an absolute monarchy. The king ruled with Parliament. Actually, I’ve seen professional historians argue that the Constitution gave the US President more power than what the King had in practice. (Even by the 1790s the ministers in Parliament really ran the show).
T
twf
Guest
Oh yes, until relatively recent times the Church DESPISED republics…some popes had some pretty damning things to say about republics.
T
twf
Guest
No one is saying that. Of course there has been a lot of good. But it doesn’t help to glorify the Revolution and gloss over the injustices either.I knew it was only a matter of time before this thread degenerated into Americans saying, proverbially, “everything my country has done is immoral…”
…while failing to recognize all the good it’s done, like saving the world from Nazism, Communism, and the Japanese warlords; the despotic and narcissistic Kaiser Wilhelm; and slavers like Jefferson Davis…
…and while ignoring aggressive wars started by Europeans; Asian Communists; and Islamic radicals.
Happy now, Johnnt3000?
T
twf
Guest
Yes, many did commit terrible acts. The Spanish too constantly get a bad rap in Latin America - though likewise the Aztecs and others engaged in very immoral practices. Yet, that doesn’t justify invasion.
J
johnnyt3000
Guest
That comparison doesn’t hold up that well. We would celebrate their birth because they are made in the image and likeness of God regardless of how they are conceived. National Holidays on the other hand, are not automatically in of themselves good. If we were French, as good Catholics how in the world could you celebrate the French Revolution that persecuted the faithful? I’m not saying that the American and French revolutions are on par, but you see my point that not all National Holidays can be automatically good. But everyone’s birthday may be celebrated because God gave them their life. What I really want to know is if as good Catholics, is it okay for us to celebrate the 4th of July?
J
johnnyt3000
Guest
The bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were objectively wrong. Objectively. CCC 2314: “Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation.” A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons—especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons—to commit such crimes."
Did you know that there were 12 U.S. Navy Pilot POW’s on Hiroshima that were killed by the bomb as well? What evidence do you or anyone else have that there “would have caused carnage on a scale never seen before or after in the history of the world”, really? The atomic bombs were the ones that caused a massive scale of carnage from all of the people that were killed. If it were infantry troops that stormed the beach heads and killed all of those same people instead (105,000 total people for both bombs combined with more injured!), would you still justify the action?
T
twf
Guest
I think it was more a hatred of the French Republic. The French revolutionaries slaughtered priests and were pretty antagonistic against the faith. Yes, the Church has a long history of backing monarchies. Theologically one could argue that monarchies better reflect the heavenly order, but there is nothing intrinsically immoral about a republic in and of itself. (Though I for one am happy to live in a constitutional monarchy). St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that the ideal form of government is an elected monarchy in which a king is elected by the “most virtuous men” of the land (not by the general populace). This is the model the Catholic Church itself strives for in that the Pope is elected for life by the cardinals - ideally the “cream of the crop” among the clergy.
T
twf
Guest
I was questioning whether the Republic they established was inherently better and more justified than the Empire they left. Perhaps in many ways…but the revolutionaries were hardly fighting for the general freedom of their people. They were fighting for the freedom of worthy white male Protestants.
P
pnewton
Guest
Right, against a monarchy. An improvement, not a perfection. Like the Thirteenth Amendment was an improvement, but a Fourteenth was needed. The we needed to go further with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which proved to be but one more step toward increased recognition of human dignity.
J
jeffrey_erwin
Guest
** Don’t forget Vietnam where the USA murdered over three million people to save them from themselves.**I knew it was only a matter of time before this thread degenerated into Americans saying, proverbially, “everything my country has done is immoral…”
…while failing to recognize all the good it’s done, like saving the world from Nazism, Communism, and the Japanese warlords; the despotic and narcissistic Kaiser Wilhelm; and slavers like Jefferson Davis…
…and while ignoring aggressive wars started by Europeans; Asian Communists; and Islamic radicals.
P
PolarGuy
Guest
Jeffrey, I call bunk on that 3 million murders claims.
Heck, it’s not just bunk, it’s a fabrication. If your position was so correct you wouldn’t have to resort to these sorts of tactics.
It’s also false to call it “murder.”
Now if you want murder, how about we talk about real murders, like those committed by Europeans like hitler or Stalin? You know, the ones Americans shed their own blood to prevent more of?
Some sense of perspective or moral equivalency would be appreciated.
Plus if the US is so awful…why don’t you leave?
Heck, it’s not just bunk, it’s a fabrication. If your position was so correct you wouldn’t have to resort to these sorts of tactics.
It’s also false to call it “murder.”
Now if you want murder, how about we talk about real murders, like those committed by Europeans like hitler or Stalin? You know, the ones Americans shed their own blood to prevent more of?
Some sense of perspective or moral equivalency would be appreciated.
Plus if the US is so awful…why don’t you leave?
C
Crusaderbear
Guest
The golden rule…
E
exnihilo
Guest
Without worrying about the 3 million number the US did make total war on the people of Vietnam. Total war is an immoral form of war but one the US fully embraces.
In WWII in the European war the US sided with the bigger murderer and left half of Europe in his evil hands. And the pretext for the war itself was Germany’s invasion of Poland which our ally ‘Uncle Joe’ Stalin did himself just sixteen days later.
J
JackVk
Guest
It was more for Britain’s sake rather than the USSR’s. Read Patrick Buchanan’s book, Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War.
Also, when one thinks about it, the First World War’s outcome did nothing but perpetuate the British Empire for another 20 years. America had no business in WWI; it is known that German agents bought ads in American newspapers warning them of which ships were targets.
- Status