Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

The Morality of Revolution


mbh26

Recommended Posts

Thinking back to the American revolution, I find it interesting that the American colonist were not British slaves. It was a feudal system that I believe was very similar to our modern capitalism. Brits born in America were viewed as having less rights than people in England although they were of the same race. Therefore Americans had little say in what their portion of taxes should be because they were not represented. This is why the revolution was fought. This why limbs were lost, parents lost, and whole lot of suffering too place. What were the Americans odds of being successful in this revolution? Do our chances of success influence whether revolution is morally right?

One standard often lauded as moral when going to war is to defend ones land. Land through much of history was a mans way to make a living. Without land, you could not live. The modern economy is no longer just about land. Different forms of capital have nearly become essential as land to live. Income tax was origninally unconstitutional. The power of the federal government was once subject to the power of the state. What did the men who fought the American revolution have in mind when they made up these rules? Being territorial and protecting your land seems selfish to some. Shouldn't the land belong to everyone? Yet even the animals before human beings had practiced the principal of being territorial. This protects against a very important problem in the human predicament, overpopulation. I'm not talking about climate change. I'm talking about forcing people to have sufficient capital to provide a human standard of living before they reproduce. In my view borders have accomplished this through history to some extent, much better than any command economy. Can we say now that education and jobs are what our land used to be. Yet we really don't have much protection for a mans job. When men became old and slowed down by disease, they didn't get thrown off their land, at least not free men. They just didn't have quite as rich a harvest. Yet when men get old and slowed down by disease in todays economy, they just get fired.

But the real way to better ones standard of living in this world, and the only way to live to excess, is not by taking advantage of the land, or even the animals. To do this, you have to take advantage of other people. And we see it happening all the time. Revolution against those who currently take advantage of other people would be very costly to those who chose to fight it and very unsuccessful. But how bad does the abuse have to be before it's the right thing to do? In a way I see a benefit to those who will not suffer the smallest injustice without a fight. These people will never be slaves. They live free or die. But the Book of Mormon talks of the Nephites in captivity who decided it was better to live as slaves than die fighting a war they couldn't win. But should whether you can win or not really determine whether you have a right to fight or not?

We see George Washington as a hero and inspired by God. What gave him the peace of mind to know what he was doing was right as he cut through the Brits? Is it possible that there were rebels in the wrong who thought they were right? I'm assuming God didn't come down and talk to any of them face to face.

Link to comment

Frankly most of the direct issues for the American Revolution were not valid ones. Taxes for instance were roughly 1% in the colonies while the taxes were 20% plus in England. Most of the taxes imposed were done so in order to pay for the 7 years (French and Indian) War that was started by George Washington himself.

One key issue that was justified is the question of a voice in Parliament. But I would also add to that the Navigation Act of 1651 and 1733. These acts forced the colonies to only trade with Britain (mercantilism). The acts ensured that the colonies would always be in debt to Britain since the colonies could only trade with the UK and could only buy from the UK. British firms overcharged for their products and underpaid for the purchase of colonial supplies. It is one thing that finally turned even loyal men like George Washington and Ben Franklin against the UK.

We see George Washington as a hero and inspired by God. What gave him the peace of mind to know what he was doing was right as he cut through the Brits? Is it possible that there were rebels in the wrong who thought they were right? I'm assuming God didn't come down and talk to any of them face to face.

George Washington could have had himself proclaimed king, he was that popular. He walked away from it. And yes there were rebels in the wrong, who fought for the wrong reasons. There always are.

But the real way to better ones standard of living in this world, and the only way to live to excess, is not by taking advantage of the land, or even the animals. To do this, you have to take advantage of other people. And we see it happening all the time. Revolution against those who currently take advantage of other people would be very costly to those who chose to fight it and very unsuccessful. But how bad does the abuse have to be before it's the right thing to do? In a way I see a benefit to those who will not suffer the smallest injustice without a fight. These people will never be slaves. They live free or die. But the Book of Mormon talks of the Nephites in captivity who decided it was better to live as slaves than die fighting a war they couldn't win. But should whether you can win or not really determine whether you have a right to fight or not?

I think you are wrong. If it were regarding a standard of living, the standard of living in colonies was higher than in England, Philly was the second largest city in the empire. And advantage over the colonies was maintained by the UK. So the colonies had a higher standard of living, even as they were being taken advantage of.

Cultural context is the decider, whether freedom is more important than life or living standard is more important than freedom. The value of freedom is perceived and not a universal standard.

Link to comment
Frankly most of the direct issues for the American Revolution were not valid ones.

Given what the scriptures say about them, I think the fact they were under a king, no matter how benign, is reason enough. In fact, I would say that not being under a constitutional government or one that is constitutional but whose constitution is not very similar to ours and whose interpretation is not reasonably similar to how ours was interpretated up to about a decade ago (not mingled with international law as a basis) is reason enough.

Link to comment

Thinking back to the American revolution...

...it was justified to ensure the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness that were denied the colonists. They and their interests were not represented in the legislative process, they were limited in who they could trade with, they were forced into debt, and they were denied other benefits of citizenship that others enjoyed back home. These are also scripturally supported reasons for rebelling against a government.

Thinking back to the American Civil War / War of Northern Agresssion, these points were broguht up but were not valid reasons for the South's secession.

Thinking upon the laws of a free country where the minority has the freedom to disagree and protest the law, there are ways to garner support and change the laws.

Thinking upon rebellions against corrupt and abusive governments that clearly disregard individuals' rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, this has to be a grassroots action with a threshold number of freedom-inspired people, and not imposed by an outside effort to "meddle with or influence them in the least to cause them to be dissatisfied with their situations in this life."

Link to comment

I agree with Jeff K.

The best book I have read on the American Revolution is The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763-1789 (Oxford History of the United States) http://www.amazon.com/Glorious-Cause-American-Revolution-1763-1789/dp/0195035755

It has been a while since I read it, by my impression was that the war, whose roots as Jeff suggests, were in the French and Indian War among others, resulted from a tangle of miscommunications and misunderstandings on both sides. It struck me that there was considerable bumbling and missed signals by the British, and tensions between Parliament and the King. Frankly, British actions reminded me a bit of the U.S. misunderstandings of the task involved in invading Iraq (or Afghanistan), and what it would take to deal with an insurgent population. it also reminded me some of the run up to the War of 1812.

I do think though that Britain did the right thing in eventually getting out of the U.S., even though one consequence was that slavery continued here until our own Civil War. Had the British retained control of the U.S., slavery would likely have ended 30 or 40 years earlier (when it did in the rest of the British Empire). An indirect result of the Revolution, therefore, was a continuation (and constitutional protection) of Slavery for a period of time. In other words, as in all wars, even "good ones", the results are often mixed.

It was the right thing for Britain to get out because Britain did not have the resources (money or manpower) to continue to deal with the insurgents here. I would have been among the common people in Britain urging the Government to cut its losses and get out, even though others might have accused me of advocating a "cut and run" strategy.

Link to comment
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men*, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed,
Link to comment

Frankly most of the direct issues for the American Revolution were not valid ones. Taxes for instance were roughly 1% in the colonies while the taxes were 20% plus in England. Most of the taxes imposed were done so in order to pay for the 7 years (French and Indian) War that was started by George Washington himself.

One key issue that was justified is the question of a voice in Parliament. But I would also add to that the Navigation Act of 1651 and 1733. These acts forced the colonies to only trade with Britain (mercantilism). The acts ensured that the colonies would always be in debt to Britain since the colonies could only trade with the UK and could only buy from the UK. British firms overcharged for their products and underpaid for the purchase of colonial supplies. It is one thing that finally turned even loyal men like George Washington and Ben Franklin against the UK.

George Washington could have had himself proclaimed king, he was that popular. He walked away from it. And yes there were rebels in the wrong, who fought for the wrong reasons. There always are.

I think you are wrong. If it were regarding a standard of living, the standard of living in colonies was higher than in England, Philly was the second largest city in the empire. And advantage over the colonies was maintained by the UK. So the colonies had a higher standard of living, even as they were being taken advantage of.

Cultural context is the decider, whether freedom is more important than life or living standard is more important than freedom. The value of freedom is perceived and not a universal standard.

I wouldn't say that Washington was at fault here. He was a commander of the Virgina militia and was following Governor Dinwiddies orders to tell the French to get out of the Ohio Region. Which was disputed territory between the British and French. In which basically was really basically a fight between British and French merchant fur traders putting pressure on each of their respective governments. Washington basically delivered an eviction notice to the commander Saint-Pierre of Fort Le Boeuf and when told no went back to Virginia to inform Dinwiddie. After he came back Dinwiddie already sent several dozen men to build a fort along the trading route. The French in turn sent several hundred more men to reinforce their forts, and then Dinwiddie sent Washington with a larger force and to build more forts. Which then led to an armed conflict as Washington intercepted and killed some French scouts probing the defenses.

This was the final straw that led to open war but it had many pre-cursers that led to it such as Celorons Expedition to claim the Ohio valley for the French and stir up the native tribes against British settlers. The King Georges War of 1747 between France and England in Europe had already cultivated mistrust. The orders by New France Governor Menneville led by Commander Langlade to attack the Miami tribe at Pickawillany for trading with the British, and then Commander Marin Malgue took several 1000 French and built forts in Ohio even before Washington and also sent forces to capture British traders and punish other tribes for trading with the British. So you can't blame Washington that led to the start. It was others long before him.

Second - In regards as to mbh26. I would say not feudalistic but more of a caste system.

Third - What did the British expect as basically America was being settled by all sorts of people seeking asylum in a new land. You had criminals, those fleeing from religious persecution, opportunists and entrepreneurs, and well basically rebellious souls. Like our modern western frontier society that like big government out of their lives, and hate to be told just about anything. Eventually that junkyard mutt would bite the proverbial hand.

Fourth - In regards to land ownership no one gave a hoot about the Native Americans right to owning land. It just goes to show who has the most firepower makes the rules.

Link to comment
they were forced into debt

That's sort of how I currently see student loans, not to mention the living expenses for things that you simply have to own to be able to do your job, like a car. That's why I see our current system as very similar to the old feudalism. You could call it a caste system as well. Only now we discriminate on things other than just skin color. We discriminate based on intelligence, health, and an element of pre-existing family wealth.

Thinking back to the American Civil War / War of Northern Agresssion, these points were broguht up but were not valid reasons for the South's secession.

I disagree. The rights of the state were originally intended to be superior to the federal government. People hold slaves today. The U.S. doesn't invade that land now to put a stop to it. Was it really worth the cost of the war to keep the South from having their own country? Why does the Union have to be held together any more than the British empire need to be held together?

The issue is similar today in that rural America is underrepresented in Congress just as the South was. Thus we get decisions like strict gun control laws that really are not the will of the people in rural communities but rather more applicable to the lifestyle of the more numerous city dwellers. That being said, I didn't think much more of the rich southern planters than I did British lords and aristocrats. So why did my family fight for the south even though they were too poor to own slaves? They were tired of elitist liberals from New York coming to a community that really was not theirs and dictating how they were to live their lives.

Thinking upon the laws of a free country where the minority has the freedom to disagree and protest the law, there are ways to garner support and change the laws.

Isn't that the point though? A majority can be just as tyrannical and unfair as any king. You can protest all you want but if you're in the minority, things aren't going to change. Sadly you're probably not going to pull off a successful revolution either as the South learned.

Thinking upon rebellions against corrupt and abusive governments that clearly disregard individuals' rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, this has to be a grassroots action with a threshold number of freedom-inspired people, and not imposed by an outside effort to "meddle with or influence them in the least to cause them to be dissatisfied with their situations in this life."

I think you're exactly right about that.

There is another point I would like to make about slavery. The fact that plantation owners had to forcibly hold the slaves on their land indicated abuse. I find this behavior despicable. Yet how much better are other employers. Henry Ford actually used to "beat," his employees and that was in the 20th century. The chinese people who made most of what we're now wearing probably endure terrible abuse from employers in the process that we just don't have to see. Yet we haven't felt so strongly about this that we've fought a war over it. No, they didn't have to physically hold these people at the job, but in our worlds overpopulated situation in which men no longer have the option of the farm, maybe they don't hold them because they don't have to, not because of any superior morality that they possess.

Link to comment
Fourth - In regards to land ownership no one gave a hoot about the Native Americans right to owning land. It just goes to show who has the most firepower makes the rules.

We view the settling of the west and the American Revolution very fondly in Church. After all, had the land not been stolen from the Indians, the Church would have no home now. How much thought did the pioneers give to the idea that the Indians owned the land? The Constitution didn't extend any rights to Native Americans either. Yet we say it was inspired by God? Would you say the early Church members believed in Manifest Destiny? Do you think they were right or wrong for so doing?

I've heard it argued that the Native Americans were never going to develop a culture that maximized use of the land or that was sufficient for the Lord to restore the gospel in? Is that the curse of the Lamanites as judged by God or is it just a white mans rationalization to expand by force?

Link to comment

We view the settling of the west and the American Revolution very fondly in Church. After all, had the land not been stolen from the Indians, the Church would have no home now. How much thought did the pioneers give to the idea that the Indians owned the land? The Constitution didn't extend any rights to Native Americans either. Yet we say it was inspired by God? Would you say the early Church members believed in Manifest Destiny? Do you think they were right or wrong for so doing?

I've heard it argued that the Native Americans were never going to develop a culture that maximized use of the land or that was sufficient for the Lord to restore the gospel in? Is that the curse of the Lamanites as judged by God or is it just a white mans rationalization to expand by force?

There is a very good book called Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond. It answers many of your questions about how some cultures are more advanced than others and why the Native Americans got the short end of the stick.

IMO it has nothing to do with God or a curse, but more to do with what natural resources are available in a given geography where a culture presides.

Link to comment

That's sort of how I currently see student loans, not to mention the living expenses for things that you simply have to own ...We discriminate based on intelligence, health, and an element of pre-existing family wealth.

Part A: distinguishing between needs and wants, a big problem if one feels "forced" to take out a temporary loan that can be reasonably paid off with the advantages gained by its application and some self-control. Part B: Discrimination (and is it always bad?) in a pure sense isn't government's problem to fix--it is a jungle out there, we all know it, and the Gospel (or the Light of Christ, which the whole world has access to)is the solution.

Why does the Union have to be held together any more than the British empire need to be held together?

To expedite the temporal and spiritual salvation of the slaves in a nation that was raised up for the initial establishment of Zion. Envision what would have happened had the Church had just one additional cultural hurdle to overcome within its own ranks, or what would have happened to the confederacy and the establishment of Zion in it had an inferior Constitution been adopted. To learn from the past: the Nephites had the same problem and sometimes had to resort to military action to enforce people meeting their obligations for their and others' freedom and to ensure future unity.

...rural America is underrepresented in Congress just as the South was.

Rural America at large does not identify itself as a singular culture, people or nation. It is a demographic which might be studied sociologically, economically, etc. Rural people of any nation tend to operate very independently, egocentrically and parochially, which has many merits. And for American rural people, this has nothing to do with not having a sound basis for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, plus more material advantages than rural people living on the rest of the planet. Rural Americans can, and many do, exercise their freedom more often than not to get what they want out of life--they can run the gamut from welfare to philanthropic missions. But this internal motivation is way beyond the role of government to provide.

Link to comment

Thinking back to the American revolution, I find it interesting that the American colonist were not British slaves. It was a feudal system that I believe was very similar to our modern capitalism. Brits born in America were viewed as having less rights than people in England although they were of the same race. Therefore Americans had little say in what their portion of taxes should be because they were not represented. This is why the revolution was fought. This why limbs were lost, parents lost, and whole lot of suffering too place. What were the Americans odds of being successful in this revolution? Do our chances of success influence whether revolution is morally right?

One standard often lauded as moral when going to war is to defend ones land. Land through much of history was a mans way to make a living. Without land, you could not live. The modern economy is no longer just about land. Different forms of capital have nearly become essential as land to live. Income tax was origninally unconstitutional. The power of the federal government was once subject to the power of the state. What did the men who fought the American revolution have in mind when they made up these rules? Being territorial and protecting your land seems selfish to some. Shouldn't the land belong to everyone? Yet even the animals before human beings had practiced the principal of being territorial. This protects against a very important problem in the human predicament, overpopulation. I'm not talking about climate change. I'm talking about forcing people to have sufficient capital to provide a human standard of living before they reproduce. In my view borders have accomplished this through history to some extent, much better than any command economy. Can we say now that education and jobs are what our land used to be. Yet we really don't have much protection for a mans job. When men became old and slowed down by disease, they didn't get thrown off their land, at least not free men. They just didn't have quite as rich a harvest. Yet when men get old and slowed down by disease in todays economy, they just get fired.

But the real way to better ones standard of living in this world, and the only way to live to excess, is not by taking advantage of the land, or even the animals. To do this, you have to take advantage of other people. And we see it happening all the time. Revolution against those who currently take advantage of other people would be very costly to those who chose to fight it and very unsuccessful. But how bad does the abuse have to be before it's the right thing to do? In a way I see a benefit to those who will not suffer the smallest injustice without a fight. These people will never be slaves. They live free or die. But the Book of Mormon talks of the Nephites in captivity who decided it was better to live as slaves than die fighting a war they couldn't win. But should whether you can win or not really determine whether you have a right to fight or not?

We see George Washington as a hero and inspired by God. What gave him the peace of mind to know what he was doing was right as he cut through the Brits? Is it possible that there were rebels in the wrong who thought they were right? I'm assuming God didn't come down and talk to any of them face to face.

So excatly what is the point of this post, as i see nothing except todays politics in it?. :P

Link to comment

Given what the scriptures say about them, I think the fact they were under a king, no matter how benign, is reason enough. In fact, I would say that not being under a constitutional government or one that is constitutional but whose constitution is not very similar to ours and whose interpretation is not reasonably similar to how ours was interpretated up to about a decade ago (not mingled with international law as a basis) is reason enough.

Render unto Caeser that which is Caesers. The history of our church, anciently and in both continents is repleat with kings, oligarchies, and other non demoncratic institutions. The form of government is not nearly so important as the right of the people to worship Him. It is one reason a temple went up in East Germany before it was raised int he west.

Link to comment

I wouldn't say that Washington was at fault here. He was a commander of the Virgina militia and was following Governor Dinwiddies orders to tell the French to get out of the Ohio Region. Which was disputed territory between the British and French. In which basically was really basically a fight between British and French merchant fur traders putting pressure on each of their respective governments. Washington basically delivered an eviction notice to the commander Saint-Pierre of Fort Le Boeuf and when told no went back to Virginia to inform Dinwiddie. After he came back Dinwiddie already sent several dozen men to build a fort along the trading route. The French in turn sent several hundred more men to reinforce their forts, and then Dinwiddie sent Washington with a larger force and to build more forts. Which then led to an armed conflict as Washington intercepted and killed some French scouts probing the defenses.

This was the final straw that led to open war but it had many pre-cursers that led to it such as Celorons Expedition to claim the Ohio valley for the French and stir up the native tribes against British settlers. The King Georges War of 1747 between France and England in Europe had already cultivated mistrust. The orders by New France Governor Menneville led by Commander Langlade to attack the Miami tribe at Pickawillany for trading with the British, and then Commander Marin Malgue took several 1000 French and built forts in Ohio even before Washington and also sent forces to capture British traders and punish other tribes for trading with the British. So you can't blame Washington that led to the start. It was others long before him.

Second - In regards as to mbh26. I would say not feudalistic but more of a caste system.

Third - What did the British expect as basically America was being settled by all sorts of people seeking asylum in a new land. You had criminals, those fleeing from religious persecution, opportunists and entrepreneurs, and well basically rebellious souls. Like our modern western frontier society that like big government out of their lives, and hate to be told just about anything. Eventually that junkyard mutt would bite the proverbial hand.

Fourth - In regards to land ownership no one gave a hoot about the Native Americans right to owning land. It just goes to show who has the most firepower makes the rules.

I wouldn't hold George Washington responsible. He was a young man and manipulated by a chief from the Iriquois Confederacy, a man called Half King. But he also signed a paper that admitted to killing a French diplomat on a diplomatic mission (of course Washington could not read French very well either).

The Ohio territory was disputed and the resulting war emptied the British Treasury (though they gained Canada and much of the Caribbean Islands for it). But I think the root cause is the Mercantilist Navigation Acts which ensured indebtedness to British goods. Even George Washington acknowledged it as a key reason for him to decide with the rebels (I would need to find the CFR on that). Then the Proclamation Act stopped colonials from extending their land grab beyond the Appalachians (to reduce tensions with the Indians), but allowed incursions from Canada - land promised to Washington for his service in the French and Indian Wars in the Ohio Valley went into the hands Canadian and British speculators).

I wonder at this though. Under a British system, how much better off would the church have been than under the US system? Many saints had to flee to the British system to escape US persecution. Is there a British equivalent of Carthage in the British system at roughly the same time? Would the church have faced the same issues with absconded properties and dissolution? Were the English Bill of Rights (more vigorously enforced and also copied for our own system) better for the growth of the church? I think in many ways it would have been.

The British Empire was teeming with people who were very protective of their rights. It was almost an unfortunate and unavoidable consequence that many of those same feelings would be heightened in a new land, where opportunities (ie new land since land meant social movement and wealth) created a greater sense of holding those freedoms that brought potential riches.

Link to comment

There is a very good book called Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond. It answers many of your questions about how some cultures are more advanced than others and why the Native Americans got the short end of the stick.

IMO it has nothing to do with God or a curse, but more to do with what natural resources are available in a given geography where a culture presides.

I never saw that book when did that come out?

Link to comment

I wouldn't hold George Washington responsible. He was a young man and manipulated by a chief from the Iroquois Confederacy, a man called Half King. But he also signed a paper that admitted to killing a French diplomat on a diplomatic mission (of course Washington could not read French very well either).

The Ohio territory was disputed and the resulting war emptied the British Treasury (though they gained Canada and much of the Caribbean Islands for it). But I think the root cause is the Mercantilist Navigation Acts which ensured indebtedness to British goods. Even George Washington acknowledged it as a key reason for him to decide with the rebels (I would need to find the CFR on that). Then the Proclamation Act stopped colonials from extending their land grab beyond the Appalachians (to reduce tensions with the Indians), but allowed incursions from Canada - land promised to Washington for his service in the French and Indian Wars in the Ohio Valley went into the hands Canadian and British speculators).

I wonder at this though. Under a British system, how much better off would the church have been than under the US system? Many saints had to flee to the British system to escape US persecution. Is there a British equivalent of Carthage in the British system at roughly the same time? Would the church have faced the same issues with absconded properties and dissolution? Were the English Bill of Rights (more vigorously enforced and also copied for our own system) better for the growth of the church? I think in many ways it would have been.

The British Empire was teeming with people who were very protective of their rights. It was almost an unfortunate and unavoidable consequence that many of those same feelings would be heightened in a new land, where opportunities (ie new land since land meant social movement and wealth) created a greater sense of holding those freedoms that brought potential riches.

It's hard to say how England would react to the church. IMO it seems that during the time of Cromwell's era that as America was very new and many Protestants fled England for various reasons, but brought many intolerances to America with their version. I do believe after Cromwell's reign England became more tolerant having tired of civil War between Protestant and Catholics and the monarchy became more sensitive to peoples religious views especially since they had to answer to Parliament. I still think though as I stated earlier that the type of people who came from England and others from Europe brought many prejudices with them. The LDS Church was not the only one to have problems, and whether America had failed and remained a colony of England, I still think they would face the bigotry and still have to move west in order for the church to flourish untouched for many years.

There were also many reasons that led to Washington to side with the rebels. One major reason was the British looked down upon him as a colonialist who was illiterate and a country bumpkin. One of the reasons I cited caste system. The British basically would not commission him as an officer in their ranks. Another is he had been influenced by Masonry and the ideas that were flourishing in discussions at the lodges of the time. I have several books on Washington who refer to these reasons. Even Jefferson and Hamilton looked on him with disdain like the British.

Link to comment
jozov, on 01 January 2010 - 05:15 PM, said:

There is a very good book called Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond. It answers many of your questions about how some cultures are more advanced than others and why the Native Americans got the short end of the stick.

IMO it has nothing to do with God or a curse, but more to do with what natural resources are available in a given geography where a culture presides.

I never saw that book when did that come out?
It came out in 1999 an excellent book. Anyone interested in anthropology should read it. Although Mr. Diamond seems atheistic in his beliefs the book is very well written I disagree with some of his ideas but overall not bad.
Link to comment

A good summary for Guns Germs and Steel

Its a pretty decent book with a few slow pages here and there, but the subject matter makes it unavoidable.

Hmm...that's interesting in Chapter 17. I have to read about it in more detail. I don't agree with his summation on the Polynesians or else he needs to include the Austronesian settling in S. America. There is no genetic evidence that pigs and chickens made Hawaii and Rapa Nui from the west. Also no evidence of the Navigation and double hull style canoe design from that region. Only similar designs are in S. America.

Link to comment

We view the settling of the west and the American Revolution very fondly in Church. After all, had the land not been stolen from the Indians, the Church would have no home now. How much thought did the pioneers give to the idea that the Indians owned the land? The Constitution didn't extend any rights to Native Americans either. Yet we say it was inspired by God? Would you say the early Church members believed in Manifest Destiny? Do you think they were right or wrong for so doing?

I've heard it argued that the Native Americans were never going to develop a culture that maximized use of the land or that was sufficient for the Lord to restore the gospel in? Is that the curse of the Lamanites as judged by God or is it just a white mans rationalization to expand by force?

It is referred to by Native Americans and Polynesians as "European Colonialism Mentality"

Link to comment

Sorry not trying to derail the thread on Polynesian History.

Actually that is an area that I am pretty light on. I wouldn't mind reading more on the polynesian side. Too concentrated on the American and Eurasian side of things.

Link to comment

I've heard it argued that the Native Americans were never going to develop a culture that maximized use of the land ... is it just a white mans rationalization to expand by force?

white mans rationalization Johnson v. M'Intosh a very sad read into the mentality of the times concerning claim of right to land based on use(destruction) of land.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...