[Unthinking Majority]

Canada is a country formed by capitalism-driven genocides. That's the essence of what it is.

It was created to destroy local cultures, and continues to do this to this day. It uses its sharp culture-destroying claws overseas as well, and for the same reason: resource exploitation.

That it's made up of a Genocidal Elite is important in world affairs. Canada will genocide for as long as it exists. It is a cancer on the Earth's crust.

And so are a few other countries...

http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=162100

QatzelOk doesn't fully understand the history of Canada, or the nature of life on planet earth since the dawn of life. In a state of anarchy with no overarching system to keep the peace, people & groups are in constant competition with each other. Whether it is 2 squirrels in competition for nuts or 2 countries going after foreign resources, this has been the nature of all life on earth. The slower squirrel who can't obtain nuts for its family will die, the faster one will survive as will its children. Same with plants in competition for sunlight, the taller, leafier ones will survive etc.

France was in fierce existential competition with Britain and other European empires. New technology meant Europeans could travel to new parts of the world. Spain/Portugal colonized latin america. If Britain did not make a foothold in what's now USA, Spain would have gathered the resources and wealth to wage war on them and destroy/conquer them. If France did not make a foothold in Canada, Britain & Spain etc. could have gained more wealth/power to invade & conquer/kill them. It was for their very survival, and it was pre-capitalism.

Indigenous groups in the New World waged similar competitions against each other for eternity (again, pre-capitalism), waging war against each other for survival. Are they evil for doing so? Is it evil to kill to survive? Is a bear evil for eating a fish?

Britain eventually conquered all of France's colonies in what's now Canada through war. Eventually the British colonies and Spanish colonies etc. rebelled and won their independence. They were too costly to keep under control.

Canada to this day has legacies of the conquering of the natives & the land/resources. It's a part of their history, entwined in their laws/constitution. What was done was done so Britain/France could survive. Some of it is still trying to be undone, to make things better for aboriginals, this has been a slow and complex process.

History and the nature of existence is very harsh. You may not realize, but you are in competition with other adults for resources. You go to school to get skills to get a good job so you aren't poor. By getting that job you have to beat every other person during the interview. It's not charity. Win or go home. In the West we now have social programs so it's no longer usually a matter life and death, but there's still differences in prosperity within countries. We can afford those social programs because we compete for resources & wealth against every other country. That is a matter of life & death, because countries at the bottom will have their populations die easier due to lack of nutrition, medicine, sanitation etc.

Should we feel bad that we "exploit" other countries? Don't feel so bad, because the whole of Africa and Asia would do exactly the same to you/us if they had the means. They would be as ruthless or more so than we are. If aboriginals invented guns/ships before Europeans they would have sailed to Europe & done exactly as we did to them. Just be DAMN glad you're on the winning side. Be proud to be a winner, for the sake of your family. Make the world a better, kinder place, but never be ashamed of what you came from.

[ness31]

Apparently, the only thing that differentiates us (humans) from ‘the animals’ or savages as it were, is our being endowed with reason, and a moral compass. So this whole survival of the fittest thing can be tempered with our humanity, a spirit of co-operation which could allow us to get along in life and not necessarily at the expense of someone else.

Is it a fairy tale or do humans have this ability? Or are some of us just more evolved than others?

You decide

[QatzelOk]

QatzelOk doesn't fully understand the history of Canada, or the nature of life on planet earth since the dawn of life.

Then went on to describe how man has acted in the last 5000 years of civilization, ignoring the 100,000 years that man existed without civilization.

Is a bear evil for eating a fish?

No, but the Nazis were evil for killing all their Jews. And Canadians were evil for killing all their nature-worshipping nomads.

This kind of evil reduces mankind's chances of survival as a species. A bear eating a fish does not. Please try to realize that killing everyone you meet in order to get filthy rich... isn't the same thing as a bear eating a fish.

Otherwise, see an analogy doctor before it's too late.

Apparently, the only thing that differentiates us (humans) from ‘the animals’ or savages as it were, is our being endowed with reason, and a moral compass.

Also, humans are incredibly gullible suckers in ways that other animals aren't. No other animals believe in superheroes or gods. And no other animal can ignore a deteriorating environment with distractions as well as our species can. These differences render us, uniquely, able to drive ourselves to extinction.

[SSDR]

@QatzelOk,

You seem to go against the industrial revolution.

[Unthinking Majority]

Apparently, the only thing that differentiates us (humans) from ‘the animals’ or savages as it were, is our being endowed with reason, and a moral compass. So this whole survival of the fittest thing can be tempered with our humanity, a spirit of co-operation which could allow us to get along in life and not necessarily at the expense of someone else.

Is it a fairy tale or do humans have this ability? Or are some of us just more evolved than others?

You decide

Well obviously the goal is to have a society and an international system where cooperation and civility reign over survival of the fittest. Unfortunately it always doesn't work out that way, because sometimes there has been no system(s) set up (yet) to take us out of the 'state of the nature" survival mode. The League of Nations and the UN is an example of an attempt to do so, as is the welfare state etc.

It's very complex. There will always be winners and losers. I guess it all depends on how the winners treat the losers.

[Unthinking Majority]

Then went on to describe how man has acted in the last 5000 years of civilization, ignoring the 100,000 years that man existed without civilization.

I did not ignore such. I did say "since the dawn of life".

No, but the Nazis were evil for killing all their Jews. And Canadians were evil for killing all their nature-worshipping nomads.

The Nazis were evil. Canadians did not kill all the natives, most died inadvertently form disease. Some were murdered because of cruelty and hatred, and yes that's evil. But "stealing land" from natives was not evil, it was done by the imperial countries to secure their very survival.

This kind of evil reduces mankind's chances of survival as a species. A bear eating a fish does not. Please try to realize that killing everyone you meet in order to get filthy rich... isn't the same thing as a bear eating a fish.

The French and British pushing natives off of their land is exactly the same as a bear eating a fish. As I said, they were in life-or-death competition with each other and other European empires at the time. Had they not colonized North America, the Spanish (or another country) would have, and then the Spanish (or whomever) would have been so much more rich and powerful than the British & French they would have invaded them, killed a lot of them via war, and then annexed them. The last 500+ years is rife with countless examples of that. Do you not understand what Napoleon and Hitler etc. were all about? European domination and destroying their rivals.

[ness31]

Also, humans are incredibly gullible suckers in ways that other animals aren't. No other animals believe in superheroes or gods. And no other animal can ignore a deteriorating environment with distractions as well as our species can. These differences render us, uniquely, able to drive ourselves to extinction.

How do you know they don’t believe in gods of sorts?

[SolarCross]

@QatzelOk yeah so not gullible.

[QatzelOk]

.
...Canadians did not kill all the natives, most died inadvertently form disease...
..."stealing land" from natives was not evil...
...Had they not colonized North America, the Spanish (or another country) would have, and then the Spanish (or whomever) would have been so much more rich and powerful than the British & French they would have invaded them, killed a lot of them via war, and then annexed them...

In the Age of Trump, a lot of people have strong opinions about history without knowing much about it beyond what they've seen on TV and in movies.

The "French" didn't "push natives off the land." The English defeated the French in NA in the "French and Indian War" (look it up), and then the English victors pushed the natives off of their lands all over North America including in the Ohio Valley which had been promised to "the Province of Quebec" by England just before the American Revolution, as a "safe space" for all the First Natiosn living there. This is why the American Revolution happened: to kill all those First Nations and take that land from them.

.And this act (along with many others) was just as evil as killing all those Jewish people in WW2, despite what mass media has told you through fiction and emotional manipulation.

Imagine if China and Russia become adversaries, and together kill everyone in Europe and the Americas because "it's for our survival as Imperial greedbags." Would this be fine with you? Would it meet your moral standards?

Russians and Chinese overlords want to know.

[Unthinking Majority]

The "French" didn't "push natives off the land." The English defeated the French in NA in the "French and Indian War" (look it up), and then the English victors pushed the natives off of their lands all over North America

You're saying the French in New France never displaced any natives?? The French and British both pushed natives off their land, though the British did much more so in North America since they colonized the US territories, and won New France territory from the mid-18th century.

Imagine if China and Russia become adversaries, and together kill everyone in Europe and the Americas because "it's for our survival as Imperial greedbags." Would this be fine with you? Would it meet your moral standards? Russians and Chinese overlords want to know.

Here's a better question: If you were King of Britain hundreds of years ago, and your bitter enemies Spain and Portugal were quickly conquering/colonizing the Caribbean, central/south america and the southern part of North America, getting rich as hell on gold/silver/sugar etc. and building giant powerful armies and naval armadas, and the east coast of what is now the USA was ripe for the taking, which action would you choose?:

1. Refuse to colonize aboriginal lands based on a moral stance, thus allowing Spain, Portugal, France, and/or any other European empires to conquer that land and gain a major economic and military advantage over you that could likely lead to one of these aggressive foreign neighbours invading/conquering Britain & killing you, your family, & half the British population.

2. Colonize the east coast of the USA and secure resources in order to compete and defend your country against aggressive neighbouring European empires while at the same time undermining their colonial efforts and imperial expansion.

3. Attempt to broker an impossible treaty with all other European countries (and eventually China, Japan etc. too) to agree that no country, from now until the end of time, will ever colonize North America for the sake of the aboriginal populations, meanwhile inevitably one or more of those agreeing countries eventually breaks the treaty and colonizes the USA anyways.

3. To defend the native population and land rights and make sure no Europeans EVER colonize the territory in what's now the US, declare war on any country that attempts to colonize it and eventually go bankrupt and have your military decimated by such war efforts, with the US eventually getting colonized anyways after your fruitless attempts inevitably fail.

Please take your pick wise King!

[Palmyrene]

@Unthinking Majority

I'll go with 1. because empires are always exploitative and greedy even to it's population. If you do evil at home, you'd evil elsewhere.

[Unthinking Majority]

@Unthinking Majority

I'll go with 1. because empires are always exploitative and greedy even to it's population. If you do evil at home, you'd evil elsewhere.

So you choose suicide?

[Palmyrene]

So you choose suicide?

If I'm a king that's probably preferable.

[QatzelOk]

So you choose suicide?

If "not genociding people" makes you feel like you're committing suicide, you might want to re-evaluate your entire belief system, and stop watching whatever kind of media you're interacting with.

You're saying the French in New France never displaced any natives??

You didn't look anything up, did you. You're just running with your own perception as to what happened in North America a few centuries ago.

Do you think that knowing nothing about Nouvelle France gives you permission to make things up by saying that "they must have been genocidal just like anglos were?"

Is knowing nothing about a subject the greatest freedom of all, to you?

[Unthinking Majority]

If "not genociding people" makes you feel like you're committing suicide, you might want to re-evaluate your entire belief system, and stop watching whatever kind of media you're interacting with.

What are you even talking about?? Answer my question from the previous thread. If you were the King of Britain, what would you have done?

You're trying to fit your 21st century sense of morality into the international relations environment of hundreds of years ago, while ignoring all of the historical realities & power dynamics caused the spread of colonization. It wasn't only greed. And you claim I don't understand history?

Do you think that knowing nothing about Nouvelle France gives you permission to make things up by saying that "they must have been genocidal just like anglos were?"

I didn't say that. And i'm not saying unnecessary mistreatment of aboriginals was tolerable. But i am saying that overall, colonizing the Americas (including taking much of their land and resources) was necessary and inevitable because of the ruthlessly competitive international environment at that time.

[Hong Wu]

Incidentally, the OP has written what I would consider to be a form of a didactic materialist argument. I think that our understanding of materialism has largely progressed beyond the usually anti-social conclusions that used to be known for as our perspective and knowledge has grown and that this kind of take might also represent the best avenue for preserving the harmony between the "God of the Philosopher's" (as @annatar1914 termed it) or the "God of Science" with more traditional western conception of God as Reason/Logos. One could read the recent things in Annatar's thread to understand this better in case I wasn't clear.

[Pants-of-dog]

What is the main argument of the OP?

That ongoing colonialism and oppression by governments is perfectly all right because organisms compete with each other for resources?

[Palmyrene]

@Pants-of-dog

It's not even correct because it refers to competition between species not organisms of the same species.

[Palmyrene]

Incidentally, the OP has written what I would consider to be a form of a didactic materialist argument. I think that our understanding of materialism has largely progressed beyond the usually anti-social conclusions that used to be known for as our perspective and knowledge has grown and that this kind of take might also represent the best avenue for preserving the harmony between the "God of the Philosopher's" (as @annatar1914 termed it) or the "God of Science" with more traditional western conception of God as Reason/Logos. One could read the recent things in Annatar's thread to understand this better in case I wasn't clear.

You should read some actually philosophers or political scientists instead of relying on posts made by other posters who mostly haven't given their ideas enough thought.