Was it morally justified to colonise America?

  • Thread starter Thread starter sealabeag
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
So the Church supports human sacrifices. Okay.

And you do support humanitarian intervention but wouldn’t have intervened to stop the Aztecs? Am I getting this right?
 
I’m just wondering why you dragged an Old Testament, pre-Christian practice - whose origins stem from sacrifices to Baal - into 16th/17th-century Spanish colonialism.
To show a moral equivalence between the religion of the Aztecs and Christians. The colonization can be criticized on a number of grounds. That is not one of them.
 
So the Church supports human sacrifices. Okay.

And you do support humanitarian intervention but wouldn’t have intervened to stop the Aztecs? Am I getting this right?
I would not have crossed the atlantic to stop one religious practise based upon a contradicting morality from another religion approving of human sacrifices.
 
colonization to human sacrifice and church stance on that sacrifice…another thread off the rails…I’m outta this one!
 
I’m just wondering why you dragged an Old Testament, pre-Christian practice - whose origins stem from sacrifices to Baal - into 16th/17th-century Spanish colonialism.
Because it is the same divine being who approves of human sacrifices in the old and new testament.
 
If you’re talking about the Cherokee, it was a bad chapter in American history, and no quesiton about it. But they were not largely Catholic. They were, and are, mostly Baptist. Some Cherokee really did go through what you’re describing, which is one of the reasons historical revisionists now condemn Andrew Jackson. Some were wealthy and arrived in carriages or on the rivers, with their black slaves. The Cherokee stood with the Confederacy in the Civil War.

The Cherokee were not native to Missouri, though the Trail of Tears passed through here. Countless of them escaped into the hills and intermarried with the white settlers. Cherokee “blood” is very widespread in the southern Ozarks.

The “native” Indians here when the Louisiana Purchase occurred were the Osage, a northern tribe that established itself in the Missouri Valley and destroyed the former tribes (probably Caddoan) living in the Ozarks so the Osage would have this for their hunting preserve. It’s the only known genocide that actually took place here.

When eastern tribes began moving into the area and wiping out the game, the Osage left on their own and resettled in Oklahoma. Later, they became very wealthy because their “reservation” is in the oil-rich Anadarko Basin.
 
I’m sorry but when the aztec practise of human sacrifices came up I could not remain silent.
 
Was it morally justified for Europeans to settle in/colonise America?
Why not ask was it morally justified for Native Americans to settle in/colonize America?

The various tribes were separate countries. They had some similarities (like Norway and Italy do) but significant differences, in language, religion, culture, government, between one tribe and another.

Tribes made wars, made treaties, traded, took captives, slaves, invaded, exterminated other tribes. They colonized, long before Columbus.
 
Last edited:
For a brief overview of the colonization of the Americas may I recommend the opening chapters or Dee Brown’s Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee?
 
Good to raise the Aztecs. If ever a society could be said to have worshipped the devil, the Aztecs were it: they practiced killings and human sacrifice on a grand scale never seen in human history; killed children and drank their blood; killed prisoners, etc.

And they were conquered at the height of their glory (depth?), almost by accident, by a few hundred Spanish - who happened to fly the banner of the Sacred Heart before them.

There is a wonderful little book I’ve got:
“Our Lady of Guadalupe and the Conquering of Darkness” that posits convincingly that the Spanish defeat of the Aztecs was divinely inspired. I happen to agree with that thesis.
 
Involving drinking blood and carving prisoners’ hearts out? I don’t think there’s any comparison.

Further, “making a mess of things later” (which is NOT what happened) doesn’t mean it wasn’t morally justified to begin with.
 
To answer the original post, yes, colonization was justified, as was evangelization.

Just some random thoughts:
–Christians are aupppsed to spread the gospel. They did.
–I really think it’s too broad to lump “colonization” together as that includes everything from voyages of exploration to military missions to a few dozen hardscrabble farmers trying to escape religious persecution.
–speaking of the military, much of the world was unknown/unexplored so the military was more involved in most of the major expeditions to the new world (is Spanish expeditions). That can’t really be legitimately attacked IMHO;
It’s just how the world was at that time.
 
As usual, Jh, there’s something to be said for that. Even when we disagree you always have something worth listening to.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top