Re: OT: Politics and other non-Debian ramblings [Was:a dumb query? pls humor me]

[Freddy Freeloader <fredddy@cableone.net>]

Ron Johnson wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 03/05/07 08:42, Freddy Freeloader wrote:
>   
> > On that point I will agree with you.  The way we treat/ed the Indians is
> > abominable.
> >     
>
> So does this mean that you *do* agree that we conquered other
> people's lands?
>
>   
> >             We should have accommodated them, not destroyed them for
> > there is much we might have learned from them.
> >     
>
> We should have honored our treaties or not signed them (we conquered
> you, now you've got to submit).
>
>   
> >                                                However, I'd say our
> > treatment of them was born out of racism, not the fact that we are an
> > imperialistic society, because racism comes from human nature, not
> > politics.  
> >     
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQFF7ELzS9HxQb37XmcRAqp5AKCbXxqro9g5DHbmSb9Y93w3LK7GNQCg12lG
> zOq0F2Cvj/tEOrecjAN0I5k=
> =Xbl+
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>   
The context I was thinking of when I wrote my post was with 
nation-states.  What happened in the west I see as different than 
invading another country with political boundaries.   What we did in the 
west was basically a migration of people that caused a problem with 
tribes already living there, and because the cultures were so different 
we clashed badly with their way of life.  When hostilities would then 
break out we would send our army out to "protect" our citizens. 

Should we have acted differently?  Yes.  Was it the same as declaring 
war on Mexico so that we can expand our borders?  No.  I see a 
difference.  We have never acted in that manner.