Was it morally justified to colonise America?

[TK421]

“Largely unoccupied” is a relative term. The population throughout the W. Hemisphere at the time of Columbus is estimated in the 50 million ballpark compared to the 90 million ballpark in Europe. Although the plagues cut into the number of natives severely, it was definitely occupied territory.

 

[StudentMI]

it was definitely occupied territory.

Indeed, if you read the book 1491 by Charles Mann you’ll see it isn’t the paradise of peaceful tribes roaming across the land.

 

[PickyPicky]

Of course seizing other people’s land and subjugating their nations was morally wrong. We can see that today (at least, most of us can; some of those on this forum apparently can’t). That doesn’t mean the colonisers were necessarily evil people: moral viewpoints change over time.

 

[TK421]

It’s as if there is a spiritual affliction that affects all of mankind and that is transmitted from one generation to another back to the beginning.

 

[StudentMI]

It’s as if there is a spiritual affliction that affects all of mankind and that is transmitted from one generation to another,

I believe it was Pascal who said you can’t understand history without original sin.

 

[1ke]

So what is the difference between this example and what happened in America?

500 years of change and the rise of the nation-state.

Is it something to do with the fact that America was not technically a “nation”?

The Americas included many nations already in existence when Europeans arrived.

 

[JSAD]

If everyone was evangelized with a sword, why didn’t most native americans convert?. True they may have been subjugated, but they were not evangelized with a sword.

 

[JSAD]

It was a different time. There were no contracts. The world was not established and the native americans ‘given’ the Americas by ‘God’.

By that logic unfortunately what America and the allied forces did in WW2 was wrong.

 

[Michaelangelo]

If everyone was evangelized with a sword, why didn’t most native americans convert?

Why should they? They were perfectly capable of fighting back and obviously did not see a good reason to convert. Just because you are met with the sword doesn’t automatically mean you have to roll over.

True they may have been subjugated, but they were not evangelized with a sword.

Of course they were. If the conquistadores were seizing military superiority in a land that wasn’t theirs and it was through this superiority the evangelization was done, how can the evangelization not be seen as done by the sword? It was not as if the inhabitants were free to say thanks but no thanks and continue practising their established religion.

 

[StudentMI]

It was not as if the inhabitants were free to say thanks but no thanks and continue practising their established religion.

Would you have preferred the Aztecs continue their religion of human sacrifices?

 

[Michaelangelo]

Would you have preferred the Aztecs continue their religion of human sacrifices?

You mean unlike the human sacrifices in the bible?

 

[StudentMI]

You mean unlike the human sacrifices in the bible?

Doesn’t answer my question.

 

[sealabeag]

Eh?! 10987654321

 

[Buks]

The grouping of colonizers and the colonized by continent, and restricting study to 1492 onward are arbitrary decisions. Doing so IMO is driven by people trying to advance their prestige or careers by catering to those who will allow their advancement if they don’t deviate from this focus.

 

[Michaelangelo]

Michaelangelo:

You mean unlike the human sacrifices in the bible?

Doesn’t answer my question.

I don’t see two religions practising human sacrifices as better or worse than another.

 

[StudentMI]

So the mammoth human sacrifices of the Aztecs are morally equivalent to you?

Would you support changing their culture to one of human rights at the point of a sword?

 

[Michaelangelo]

So the mammoth human sacrifices of the Aztecs are morally equivalent to you?

I’m not aware of the numbers of sacrifices by the aztecs, more than it was a lot. But we’re still talking about two religions approving of human sacrifices. Which hardly puts christianity in a position to point a finger and say “you are bad” to the aztecs…

Would you support changing their culture to one of human rights at the point of a sword?

Nope. If they attacked me and in defending myself a modulation of culture occurred, then fine. But not if I try to steal their land and resources as a primary reason to go there and then on top of that decide that their culture is bad and should be modulated.

 

[StudentMI]

So Christianity supports human sacrifices? Could you point me to a Church document that calls for human sacrifices?

So you are against humanitarian intervention?

 

[blackforest]

The Church’s position is nuanced. People have a right to emigrate, and nations have a right to control their borders.

Whether or not it’s moral for your hypothetical group of Palestinians will depend on a number of factors. If they come to work and establish communities, then great. If they come to colonize “by the sword” and steal land, not so great.

I don’t see two religions practising human sacrifices as better or worse than another.

Spanish, French, and British colonists were not practicing human sacrifice . . . at least not the religiously motivated kind.

 

[Michaelangelo]

So Christianity supports human sacrifices? Could you point me to a Church document that calls for human sacrifices?

Can you point to a church document condoning the sacrifices in the bible?

So you are against humanitarian intervention?

To answer that you first have to define the conditions of such intervention.