In keeping with the ongoing theme of 'debate' from these last few days .. I was invited to a dinner party last night. A guy there mentioned seeing the movie The Last Samurai, starring Tom Cruise. I told how him I thought it was interesting how the film alluded to a parallel with the native American Indian, how both groups of noble people got screwed (wiped out) by their respective governments .. not intending to start a political/philosophical argument, mind you. (I have already discussed some of my thoughts on this topic in the post dated 29december.) This guy's wife immediately chimed in, saying to him, "See! see! I'm not the only one who thinks that." It was obvious they had already discussed the issue, and disagreed. He claimed to be a Political Science major, as if that somehow qualifies one to make such judgments. We did not discuss the issue long, not wanting to ruin the party for others, but I was genuinely curious about how he arrived at his conclusion. His two, main premises were: 1. This was nothing new. Nations have been conquering other nations for thousands of years. I tried to point out that precedent is never a valid justification, and is even listed as a logical fallacy known as the Appeal to Precedent, or Appeal to Tradition or Appeal to Common Practice. (If I were king, I'd require every student to take a class in Logic.) Then I mentioned that the Indians were fighting amongst themselves with bows & arrows & tomahawks, while the government was raining cannonballs on their heads, as cited in the well-documented Massacre at Wounded Knee, where unarmed women & children were also attacked. To be honest, I am not surprised that our technologically advanced nation had their way with the native American Indian. What surprises me is how badly we treated them. I mean, we could have easily given them land equaling a few states, such a North & South Dakota, and even Montana and Idaho. Chief Joseph had a saying that captures this idea more eloquently than I could express: "If you tie a horse to a stake, do you expect he will grow fat? If you pen an Indian up on a small spot of earth and compel him to stay there, he will not be contented nor will he grow and prosper. I have asked some of the Great White Chiefs where they get their authority to say to the Indian that he shall stay in one place, while he sees white men going where they please. They cannot tell me." Anyway, as we all know, you can never talk someone into seeing things your way. Usually it just ends up angering them. So we moved on to more innocuous topics, such as football. |
|
Justice is a relative term. For the sake of brevity we will look at the argument of justice from side of the settlers,
because the Native Americans will inevitably describe their treatment as unjust (I don't blame them)
For justice to exist, there needs to be something (usually laws) to distinguish it from injustice.
There is no concept of justice in a pure anarchic society because there are no laws.
A society that has no laws cannot be called civilised.
Therefore, the only possible way IMO to argue that the Native Americans didn't get treated unfairly (ie. screwed)
is to agree that the settlers were uncivilised, or at least not as civilised as the Native Americans.
'Civilised' (that is the English spelling) is defined by www.dictionary.com as
"An advanced state of intellectual, cultural, and material development in human society,
marked by progress in the arts and sciences, the extensive use of record-keeping, including writing,
and the appearance of complex political and social institutions."
If we agree that the settlers (and their descendants :P) were culturally and intellectually retarded,
then we could argue that they were well within their (virtually non-existant) legal boundaries to act the way in which they did.
In other words, justice prevailed.
Yeah right.
Posted by: ilitirit at January 20, 2004 03:28 AM