CARAVAN heading to The U.S.A ( POLL )


#692

Remember away.

The problem here is that you are promoting a precedent.

This means your principle (The Robin Hood Principle) implies that anytime someone considers themselves poor or disadvantaged they have a divine right just to take it from anyone they perceive to be richer than they.

Just remember that RHP when you walk down a street and a poor fellow decides you are richer than he and is determined to equalize things. Don’t put up a wall or attempt to thwart his Robin Hood proclivity regarding you and your wealth.


#693

When Robin Hood is taken out of story books, the reality is very ugly.


#694

No, do you?


#695

Of course not. But s/he’s not claiming to know. Angel 12 is calling out other posters on their empty speculation and cynicism.


#696

The Indigenous might disagree with you somewhat.


#697

If I recall correctly, Robin Hood wasn’t merely taking from the rich to give to the poor. He was actually practicing restorative justice in the sense that the rich who were his targets had gotten illegitimately rich by taking money through taxation from common citizens, thereby making them poor.

He was restoring to “the poor” what had been rightfully theirs, in the first place.


#698

I’ll just leave this here…

https://www.pbs.org/gunsgermssteel/variables/smallpox.html

Disease was by far the biggest killer of the native american population.


#699

Name a time that has worked, outside of legends. It is a recipe for anarchy, because the “poor” can be just as grasping and have a sense of their due that is as disproportionate as anybody else.

If people are taking justice into their own hands, justice has failed.


#700

The contention was: Lol there’s never been a genocide on US soil.

LOL?!?! OK, that’s just wrong in so many ways. Yes, without argument there have been acts of genocide on US soil. It is undeniably in the public record. This mythology that we can say “thank you, Lord, that this nation is not like other nations” is a very harmful bit of self-delusion, particularly if it is extended to the “soil” of our territories as a whole since 1492 (or even before that, as there were undoubtedly stronger nations swallowing the weaker before that) and not just the official acts of the US government herself. Yes, we’ve been like other nations. We have some things to be proud of, but freedom from any acts or intention of genocide is NOT among them!!

No, the tragedy of unintentionally-imported smallpox doesn’t get that comment off the hook.

For the record (and back to the topic of the thread): Freedom from bouts of irrational fear of immigration is not among them, either. That one also makes its regular rounds in the minds of the populace. It can be demonstrated that it is doing so right now: that is, total fabrications about immigration are made up out of whole cloth, and people rush to swallow them, hook, line and sinker.


#701

One cannot commit genocide without an intent.
Please show how the spread of a disease among the population was intentional.


#702

Spreading small-pox was unintentional.
Attacking native villages and killing all who were found there, whether armed or not, including women and children down to and including the mere infants? That is an act of genocide. That the bodies were desecrated by some of the soldiers afterwards, sometimes with body parts of the murdered taken as the most perverted kind of personal trophies, only shows it even more for what it was.

So: NO LOL. It happened. It is undeniable. It was shameful. Smallpox isn’t a cover for it, either.


#703

I am not disagreeing with you here. The tenth commandment is pretty clear that unequal distribution of goods isn’t an evil thing, in itself. Nor that justice requires turning goods over to those who covet them.

It isn’t a case of justice failing, either. There were times in history when social order was maintained by individuals “taking justice into their own hands” before systems of governance were developed.

It might even be argued that good governance is a balance between all individuals acting on their own behalf and the state acting on behalf of all. It certainly beats placing all power in the hands of the state or the opposite of everyone for him/herself. The tension in balance leads to the codifying of principles of justice – at least, that would be the hope.


#704

That wasn’t the case in the legend. In the legend, it was garden-variety abuse of governing power by which the wealthy oppressed people without the power to stop those whose established duty it was to protect them. It wasn’t that justice was in its infancy. It was that justice was bound, gagged and thrown out into the darkness.

Those being held down only endure that situation for so long before they give up on justice ever raising a finger on their behalf. Then it gets ugly.


#705

Doesn’t matter. Illegal is illegal. While we have the responsibility to take care of the poor who are among our midst, we don’t have an obligation to take in everyone from the world at the expense of our own population.

That said, I support any charity that wants to support them while they’re having their case heard at the border.


#706

That atrocities happened is undeniable.
Genocide, however, is not an accurate description.


#707

If an act is committed with the intention that wiping out a nation or a tribe or an ethnic group, or even wiping it out in a particular territory, would be a desirable result, I don’t know what else you call it. That’s straw-splitting.

It is abundantly clear from statements made at the time that the intention was genocidal.

No Indians left: that was the intention. Not just subdued or conquered, but removed and preferably just wiped out. Let’s not try to sugarcoat it, nor the prevailing sentiment that the natives were an inferior race that didn’t deserve to be on the land that the self-anointed superior race coveted for its own exclusive use.


#708

Find one official US document, policy, or law, that stated the complete eradication of the natives was a goal, aim, of desire of the US government.


#709

Ah, so as long as they only say “the only good Indian I ever saw was a dead Ïndian” out loud but without enshrining that in an official document subject to public scrutiny, the intention could not possibly be eradication. (And, by the way, the evidence is that the British and later the US governments did expose native tribes to deadly diseases on purpose, as a way to subdue them.) But look at post 656, and you tell me.

There are entire tribes in California that were wiped out completely…and again, women and children were targets. When women, children, unarmed men, and prisoners are not just unintended casualties but are positively made into targets of lethal attack, that isn’t subduing the enemy. That is an attempt to wipe them out, to rid the land of them.


#710

Conjecture without proof. Neither side was all that virtuous. Both committed atrocities. One side was just better at it, human history repeated over and over.


#711

I’ll repeat what Kit Carson said, since he was there:
His men shot down squaws, and blew the brains out of little innocent children. You call sich soldiers Christians, do ye? And Indians savages? What der yer s’pose our Heavenly Father, who made both them and us, thinks of these things?

So, one more time: The contention was Lol there’s never been a genocide on US soil.
That is false. Period.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.