Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

zoinkability t1_islaj37 wrote

Reply to comment by turnshavetabled in On Indigenous Peoples' Day, five inspirational conservation stories in the U.S. by Sariel007

By this logic a bunch of aliens from another planet would be justified to come in, genocide 90% of all humans, take 99% of the earth’s landmass, and justify it by pointing out that we fought each other before they arrived. Indigenous nations do not need to have been some hippy pacifist ideal in order to have any right to say that what European colonizers did was wrong.

15

turnshavetabled t1_islum3t wrote

You can not like it all you want but I was just arguing against having to give those lands back. That’s ridiculous

−2

MrOpelepo t1_islq32t wrote

Yes that is sound logic, and the "logic" of nature. If aliens can wipe us out they have every right to the land since we couldn't keep it. Just because it makes you feel bad doesn't make it untrue.

−5

zoinkability t1_islta56 wrote

Might makes right!

Seriously, if that is your argument, just make it. The commenter above isn’t making that argument though. They are making the argument that the fact that indigenous nations fought with each other excuses the fact of colonialism.

4

MrOpelepo t1_islticj wrote

So it is, so it's always been. At least in nature, which we are apart of - might does make right.

I don't really see where they excuse colonialism, only that that they disagree the land colonialists conquered should be given back to the last tribe that conquered that land before colonists arrived.

−6

zoinkability t1_ism0k7c wrote

There is a major difference between human societies and nature, namely that we have morals and ethics. If you truly believe that might makes right as a fundamental principle, you basically have to throw out most of morality and ethics. You have to believe that slavery was OK, the holocaust was OK, rape and murder are OK, China’s treatment of Uyghur is OK, torture is OK. After all, they are all simply scenarios where someone used their might to do what they wished.

So: does might really make right? Or only when you are on the side of might?

2

MrOpelepo t1_ism3zwy wrote

I'm going to debate your first premise. Humans are of nature, therefore anything humans can, will ever do, or conceive of is of nature, or natural. Might makes right is a saying that means whoever has more force or power will be victorious, it's a statement of fact, not morality. Slavery existed because one group of people had power over another group, that is might makes right, but it does not make it morally correct.

−2

zoinkability t1_ism8czq wrote

OK, ethics and morality are part of nature because humans are a part of nature. I don’t see how that changes anything else about this discussion. Humans still have a sense of right and wrong that does not (as far as we know) exist elsewhere in nature.

In any case you are now getting into semantics. What does “right” even mean if not morally and/or ethically acceptable? If it simply means “what is” then it has no meaning, since nothing that exists can be wrong.

3

1questions t1_isna1xp wrote

Your second sentence is poor logic.

1

MrOpelepo t1_isnvkam wrote

I am willing to confess it is poor grammar. But I am also willing to defend the underlying logic to my death.

1

1questions t1_isn9ym2 wrote

“At least in nature, which we are a part of-might does make right.” Say the person using a cell phone or computer to comment on Reddit. Obviously we aren’t purely living off the land as little nature hippies, we have technology. We can do better than treat each other as animals. By your logic we shouldn’t have any laws. Murder someone? That’s ok the victim shouldn’t have been so weak. Pretty lousy argument.

1