RWN rant: The Native Americans deserved it.

[^_^ 5,021]

... but one person is focused on retaliation against the US, while another was focused on building the US and getting independence from Britain.

That's a very US-centric view. I am sure bin Laden believes he is also focused on building a nation and freeing it of American/western imperialistic influence.

[chri'stina 190]

That's a very US-centric view. I am sure bin Laden believes he is also focused on building a nation and freeing it of American/western imperialistic influence.

You love bin Laden, don't you??

Edited February 9, 2011 by chri'stina

[^_^ 5,021]

You love bin Laden, don't you??

well played.

[luckytxn 2,265]

I'm not saying that exactly, but I wouldn't call their actions Christian. When people are in conquest mode, I don't think that itself is Christian behavior. But I wouldn't say they didn't believe in Christ.

We forget how it was back then and project what we believe now onto that distant time. It was the prevailing thought back then that we were actually doing the natives a favor by conquering them and forcing Christ on them. I had read a lot of that history and there were discussions and debates about this. Of course it doesn't make it right but if we were living back then and only knew the church and what we were taught about having to convert even if by force uncivilized tribes then our thoughts would more than likely have ran along the same lines.

[^_^ 5,021]

We forget how it was back then and project what we believe now onto that distant time. It was the prevailing thought back then that we were actually doing the natives a favor by conquering them and forcing Christ on them. I had read a lot of that history and there were discussions and debates about this. Of course it doesn't make it right but if we were living back then and only knew the church and what we were taught about having to convert even if by force uncivilized tribes then our thoughts would more than likely have ran along the same lines.

good post. +1.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

We forget how it was back then and project what we believe now onto that distant time. It was the prevailing thought back then that we were actually doing the natives a favor by conquering them and forcing Christ on them. I had read a lot of that history and there were discussions and debates about this. Of course it doesn't make it right but if we were living back then and only knew the church and what we were taught about having to convert even if by force uncivilized tribes then our thoughts would more than likely have ran along the same lines.

That's true, but the guy who wrote that article is speaking today, not hundreds of years ago...

[sandinista! 1,816]

We forget how it was back then and project what we believe now onto that distant time. It was the prevailing thought back then that we were actually doing the natives a favor by conquering them and forcing Christ on them. I had read a lot of that history and there were discussions and debates about this. Of course it doesn't make it right but if we were living back then and only knew the church and what we were taught about having to convert even if by force uncivilized tribes then our thoughts would more than likely have ran along the same lines.

there was plenty of dissenting thought from that mindset though, to completely write it off as "oh, they were just men of their time". bartolome de las casas is a prime example of that, along with the dominican friars who refused confession to the spanish slave owners on hispaniola. there was a lot more protest against these kinds of practices, even early on, and not nearly enough credence is granted to them.

[luckytxn 2,265]

there was plenty of dissenting thought from that mindset though, to completely write it off as "oh, they were just men of their time". bartolome de las casas is a prime example of that, along with the dominican friars who refused confession to the spanish slave owners on hispaniola. there was a lot more protest against these kinds of practices, even early on, and not nearly enough credence is granted to them.

That is why I said there were debates even back then. There is also much writing from different people and letters that show this debate. The prevailing wisdom was what I said before though, at least from what I have read on all this from back then. Maybe there is much lost correspondence that will turn up that shows it was the opposite as history is written by the victors. You are right that some friars did refuse that wisdom and some even wrote back to the authorities protesting the brutal treatment. A few overseers were even recalled if I recollect.

There may have been a few friars that balked but I have read a lot that the church was complicit and thrilled even for the opportunity that came their way.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The author of the article is almost writing the piece from the perspective of the European conquerors at the time. Why would someone do that?

[sandinista! 1,816]

because he's all kinds of crazy. his other writings are pretty demented too.

a 17 year old kid who also blogs on the american family association website posted a fairly decent repudiation of fischer's piece. it's here-http://www.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147503281

not perfect, but not bad for a 17 yr old kid either.