Quote:
Originally Posted by Mblake1981
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Story of the world.
One group has some land, another party comes over the hill to rape and pillage and take it for themselves. The only difference is there is still decendants left because they were not all rounded up, killed and tossed in a big pile. People dig those up from time to time, it's also how some of those Natives lived their lives here. It's an issue because instead of doing the human thing and cleaning the slate so there are no future issues, so current age people who didn't live that way are shocked and horrified about the past they came from, the same past all humans come from, and they can point to it as some means of political leverage.
Is human nature wrong? Are "enlightened" or whatever humans wrong? Is it wrong to judge the past from current times?
Who would like to go tear down some statues that symbolize how we got here now (would you exist otherwise?) because we are ashamed of it... only because someone else is there to shame you. You could think to yourself "You know, if it wasn't for those ruthless savages I wouldn't be here to feel shame from those they left alive"
|
That's the inherent conundrum of attempting to pinpoint "original sin" the further you look, the deeper the rabbit hole goes. The entire concept that we're to hold those that exist now (without having a choosing in who they were originated from) accountable for the crimes of our ancestors is an irreconcilable problem. Who has the authority to state that the statute of limitations on such a practice rests specifically at the year 1942, or 1776, or 1600, or 1100, or 6,000 BC?