Jamie123

Prince Andrew

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

What I don't agree with is that this is more true for Americans than it is for the US.

ūüėĄ

My attempt was not not one-up the US over the UK. My point was to describe why America matters, at least in my mind. Is it because we're insanely rich? No, that's not America's value to the world, and it's not really the promise that America gives, no more than Hollywood films are. Americans are not better, more valuable human beings than anyone else, and nor is America as a place more holy than other places. I believe America has been uniquely blessed, and I want to believe that Americans have given some great gifts to the world that makes the population of the whole planet better off than they would be without an America. That's what I'm trying to express.

Americans speak English, a language we inherited from, well, England. Our law (indeed, the law of the western world) is based on English common law. Our very Constitution is inspired by and, really, based on English documents such as the Magna Carta. Our Founding Fathers were a bunch of Englishmen that wanted to put into practice some English (and French) ideals in their own country, a place where the government would not tax everyone and give part of the proceeds to the Church of Whatever Nation We're In. America took in English and other important European political and societal ideals and used them to form a new government, built on what came before but much different. And if the experiment was far from uniformly successful, I believe it was nevertheless enormously successful, standing then and now as a beacon to the world.

I am not saying the UK is evil, and heaven knows I'm not saying the US is perfectly good. Far, far from it. But the specific point I was making there was that class distinction has been a huge thing for literally centuries, probably millennia, in Great Britain, and continues to be so, if not as visibly. The US was founded on the principle rejecting that sort of formal political class distinction. We aren't entirely free of it, but I do think that overall, we show great improvement from our English ancestors.

Again, my point is not to compare the US with the UK, but to argue that the US stands for something noble, or at least is supposed to. And despite the remnants of an ancient¬†political system that I consider corrupt, I see your Queen as attempting to do something that may be personally uncomfortable or even excruciatingly painful for her, but for what she sees as a higher purpose. Such an action strikes me as admirable, indeed as‚ÄĒdare I say it?‚ÄĒnoble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Vort said:

The US was founded on the principle rejecting that sort of formal political  permanent (or immutable) class distinction.

The Democrats are trying to bring it back.  They are trying their darnest to establish skin color, nationality of origin, gender, and any other immutable characteristics they can grab to make permanent class distinctions to divide Americans.  Fortunately, they are failing in every turn because the majority of Americans are still culturally inclined to embrace liberty over permanent class distinctions.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/22/2019 at 12:55 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

I have a lot of respect for the Queen, but she sure seems to have a pretty useless set of offspring.  Charles, methinks, is going to be a disaster.  William seems to be a stand-up guy, and seems to have married reasonably well (other than the whole modeling-underwear-in-her-college-days unpleasantness); otherwise I’d be quite content to just let the monarchy end with Elizabeth II.

 I don't get the fascination with the Royal family and whether or not baby Archie has red hair.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/26/2019 at 4:35 PM, anatess2 said:

Except... that the royals at genesis owned the property not by purchase or spoils of war... but by claims to the Permanent Class. 

Actually that set me thinking. The origin of the Crown Estates is not something I ever really thought about before, and it's an interesting question.

It seems that in the general "tidying up" that followed the Norman Conquest, all land which was not otherwise spoken for was assumed to belong to the king. (What they did in Anglo-Saxon times I don't know; perhaps all unclaimed land was "up for grabs" - though I daresay it took a brave man to set up on his own with marauding vikings rampaging everywhere. Better to stay on your local theign's land where you had some safety in numbers.) I suppose this could be seen as a "spoil of war" since William had to fight Harold for the throne - though that's hardly the way he would have seen it himself. (He was claiming a throne he considered rightfully his anyway, regardless of whether his invasion had been successful.)

But let me ask you this: when the pioneers moved west across America, claiming lands which had previously belonged to the Native Americans, were they not claiming it on the basis of "class" membership? (White Europeans as opposed to red-skinned "Injuns".) And when Andrew Jackson forced the Cherokee's off their land and onto the "Trail of Tears" was he not stealing land from one "class" of humans in order to give it to another?  Are the people who now "own" that land now having that ownership questioned because it was originally seized from a different class of people in order that they could have it?

Edited by Jamie123

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jamie123 said:

Actually that set me thinking. The origin of the Crown Estates is not something I ever really thought about before, and it's an interesting question.

It seems that in the general "tidying up" that followed the Norman Conquest, all land which was not otherwise spoken for was assumed to belong to the king. (What they did in Anglo-Saxon times I don't know; perhaps all unclaimed land was "up for grabs" - though I daresay it took a brave man to set up on his own with marauding vikings rampaging everywhere. Better to stay on your local theign's land where you had some safety in numbers.) I suppose this could be seen as a "spoil of war" since William had to fight Harold for the throne - though that's hardly the way he would have seen it himself. (He was claiming a throne he considered rightfully his anyway, regardless of whether his invasion had been successful.)

But let me ask you this: when the pioneers moved west across America, claiming lands which had previously belonged to the Native Americans, were they not claiming it on the basis of "class" membership? (White Europeans as opposed to red-skinned "Injuns".) And when Andrew Jackson forced the Cherokee's off their land and onto the "Trail of Tears" was he not stealing land from one "class" of humans in order to give it to another?  Are the people who now "own" that land now having that ownership questioned because it was originally seized from a different class of people in order that they could have it?

That's a very interesting thought, but also very odd in other ways.  Most of that territory you are discussing was obtained by treaty.  Thus, legally, one could argue that the territory thus was granted or given by treaty and legal treatise.

However, the ethics of it could also be called into question, that when a treaty is signed under duress or under lack of ability and knowledge, is the treaty legal?

The US would say that it IS legal in that they can obtain that which is legally given.

However, the next thought is whether the inhabitants even had the ability to give land that they themselves claimed was not theirs to give...OR, in other instances had been claimed by them without giving the other parties or inhabitants the process to object or deny such claim?

The Utah territory could be seen as both claimed by parties by force or by withholding the ability of objection to the parties that controlled that land, OR, later, by treaty to those that were under ignorance or force, OR, later...by treaty between those that claimed these lands in giving it to the US (by force one could claim).

On the otherhand, when ever land is ceded by treaty ending a conflict or war, that treaty is in most instances seen as binding.  A question not asked by you, but could be raised, is if the original parties ceding the land never truly legally obtained it by treaty but instead by claim and force...could they legally cede that land away again to another party that forced them to do so by treaty?

I would not say it is so much as class that gave them the ideas that they legally had hold of the land, but more of force and the ability to enforce treaties of claim.

Edited by JohnsonJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/26/2019 at 8:47 PM, Suzie said:

¬†I don't get the fascination with the Royal family and whether or not baby Archie has red hair.ÔĽŅ

If you had been brought up in England and your family was not particularly anti-monarchy then you would get it. To "Middle England" (by which I mean the conservative middle and upper-working classes) the royals are seen as a kind of extended family. People gossip/winge about them in the same sort of way they do about Uncle Jim or Aunt Jenny. (Right now Prince Andrew is the "disgraceful uncle" who's brought embarrassment on the rest of the family.) As a kid, listening to the way grown-ups talked about the royals, I sometimes vaguely felt they really were our relatives.

Edited by Jamie123

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

Actually that set me thinking. The origin of the Crown Estates is not something I ever really thought about before, and it's an interesting question.

It seems that in the general "tidying up" that followed the Norman Conquest, all land which was not otherwise spoken for was assumed to belong to the king. (What they did in Anglo-Saxon times I don't know; perhaps all unclaimed land was "up for grabs" - though I daresay it took a brave man to set up on his own with marauding vikings rampaging everywhere. Better to stay on your local theign's land where you had some safety in numbers.) I suppose this could be seen as a "spoil of war" since William had to fight Harold for the throne - though that's hardly the way he would have seen it himself. (He was claiming a throne he considered rightfully his anyway, regardless of whether his invasion had been successful.)

But let me ask you this: when the pioneers moved west across America, claiming lands which had previously belonged to the Native Americans, were they not claiming it on the basis of "class" membership? (White Europeans as opposed to red-skinned "Injuns".) And when Andrew Jackson forced the Cherokee's off their land and onto the "Trail of Tears" was he not stealing land from one "class" of humans in order to give it to another?  Are the people who now "own" that land now having that ownership questioned because it was originally seized from a different class of people in order that they could have it?

That is certainly a big element, but I believe the Americans also inherited from the English a belief that land should be owned by those most likely to care for and improve it (hence, e.g., the legal doctrine of adverse possession).  

Given the massive population collapses the native Americans had suffered in the 16th century, from the 17th and 18th century settlers‚Äô standpoint, the natives had simply abandoned much of the land that with two-hundred-year-old hindsight we now describe as ‚Äútheirs‚ÄĚ (and remember, many of the natives themselves had no concept of land ‚Äúownership‚ÄĚ). ¬†To the degree that some natives still lived in the region,¬†their rangeland far exceeded what (the settlers believed) the natives truly ‚Äúneeded‚ÄĚ to survive if they would only adopt a more ‚Äúindustrious‚ÄĚ lifestyle (ie shifting from hunter-gatherers to farmers). ¬†

One might say it was proto-Marxist redistributionism, not racism, that doomed the Native Americans.  

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/22/2019 at 12:57 PM, Jamie123 said:

I'm not going to say anything about Epstein, or if Randy Andy (as they used to call him) did anything naughty in his house, or on his island, or anywhere else. I don't know whether he did or not, and I've no way of finding out, so I'm not going to talk about it.

What does bother me though is the way everyone on TV keeps banging on about how he's the Queen's "favourite son". How anyone knows that either I don't know, but ideally, a good mother doesn't have a favourite son/daughter. She loves all her sons and daughters exactly the same.

ÔĽŅ Of course, we're all only human and some of us are bound to love some of our kids more than others - but that's a fault us. It's something we should strive to avoid.

All this "Queen's favourite son" stuff is basically saying: "Yah! Boo! The nasty old Queen's a horrible favouritist!"

Which isn't very nice!

Yes I am originally from England and my dad was the biggest royalist you could ever meet. He genuinely would stop being friends with people if they said a bad word about the Queen. I do find the way the Media in the UK have handled this as distasteful. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Given the massive population collapses the native Americans had suffered in the 16th century, from the 17th and 18th century

Due to diseases of course.

Quote

settlers‚Äô standpoint, the natives had simply abandoned much of the land that with two-hundred-year-old hindsight we now describe as ‚ÄúÔĽŅtheirs‚ÄĚ (and remember, many of the natives themselves had no concept of land ‚Äúownership‚ÄĚ).

Well not really.   The settlers didn't think the land was abandoned, but many thought the Native Americans were sub-human or lesser humans.  This is because they were non-Christians.

Also, not all settlers thought that way.   They genuinely wanted to live in peace with the Native Americans and wanted to establish trade networks with them.

Quote

To the degree thatÔĽŅ some natives still lived in the region,¬†their rangeland far exceeded what (the settlers believed) the natives truly ‚Äúneeded‚ÄĚ to survive if they would only adopt a ÔĽŅmore ‚Äúindustrious‚ÄĚ lifestyle (ie sÔĽŅhifting from hunter-gatherers to farmers). ¬†ÔĽŅ

Most tribes were farmers (though not exclusively among most tribes).  In fact it was the Native Americans who taught many of the settlers how to farm of the crops.   Few tribes were strictly hunter gatherers.

Quote

One might say it was proto-Marxist redistributionism, not racism, that doomed the Native Americans.  

It was mostly disease and then racism (or at least prejudice against non-Christians).

Disease was the #1 factor.  It wiped out a huge percentage of the native population and weakened the tribes.  It left a whole lot of tribes completely terrified.   After disease took it's toll, the subduction of the Native Americans was much easier.  Racism played a huge part.   This was true of more than just Native Americans too, but was true about colonization amoung other parts of the world as well.  Early colonization was seldom benificial to native populations in the Americas.

Also, a lot of settlers looked at the Native Americans as one people, and vice versa.   When one tribe attacked a settlement, settlers might attack a completely unrelated tribe and vice versa.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Scott said:

Due to diseases of course.

Well not really.   The settlers didn't think the land was abandoned, but many thought the Native Americans were sub-human or lesser humans.  This is because they were non-Christians.

Also, not all settlers thought that way.   They genuinely wanted to live in peace with the Native Americans and wanted to establish trade networks with them.

Most tribes were farmers (though not exclusively among most tribes).  In fact it was the Native Americans who taught many of the settlers how to farm of the crops.   Few tribes were strictly hunter gatherers.

It was mostly disease and then racism (or at least prejudice against non-Christians).

Disease was the #1 factor.  It wiped out a huge percentage of the native population and weakened the tribes.  It left a whole lot of tribes completely terrified.   After disease took it's toll, the subduction of the Native Americans was much easier.  Racism played a huge part.   This was true of more than just Native Americans too, but was true about colonization amoung other parts of the world as well.  Early colonization was seldom benificial to native populations in the Americas.

Also, a lot of settlers looked at the Native Americans as one people, and vice versa.   When one tribe attacked a settlement, settlers might attack a completely unrelated tribe and vice versa.  

 

In New England, of course, we have the stories of Squanto and Massasoit helping the pilgrims to raise maize¬†and to trap fish; but even the Wampanoag were semi-nomadic. ¬†Many of the purportedly ¬†‚Äúhumanitarian‚ÄĚ European efforts towards the Indians were geared towards getting them to settle down and farm‚ÄĒFather Jun√≠pero Serra‚Äôs missions on the west coast, Brigham Young‚Äôs work with the Utes¬†and Paiutes, and indeed federal Indian policy for about a hundred years after the Civil War.

Beyond that you make several other¬†good points, but I‚Äôm not convinced that ‚Äúracism‚ÄĚ in the modern sense of the word was at issue. ¬†Look at the Muslim conquest of Spain, or the exploits of Vlad the Impaler, or the atrocities of Hundred Years War, or the Wars of the Roses. ¬†European peoples¬†had been denying the humanity of and going terrible things to¬†each other, since Vlad the Impaler . . . and well before. ¬†And of course, many of the native Americans were just as brutal (Aztecs, anyone?); they just lacked the ability to project their own brands¬†of brutality due to accidents of epidemiology and technological development. (Yeah, I‚Äôve read ‚ÄúGuns, Germs, and Steel‚ÄĚ and I know I‚Äôm drastically over-simplifying the underlying reasons.)

We tend to forget just how much brutality has been a part of human existence across cultures. ¬†People didn‚Äôt, and don‚Äôt, need a twenty-first-century construct¬†of ‚Äúracist‚Ä̬†dogma to hurt each other . . . Most of us¬†just need to want something someone else has, and a sincere belief that violence is the most effective¬†way to get it; and then good old-fashioned tribalism fills in whatever moral blanks may be missing from the equation. ¬†

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Some good points, but I‚Äôm not convinced that ‚Äúracism‚ÄĚ in the modern sense of the word was at issue.

Racism was much of it for sure.  They were judged by many because of their race, culture, and religion.

Referring to people as "half men", "wretched savages", "an inferior race", etc. is racism.   So is enslaving someone (many Native Americans were enslaved) because of their racial background.

How is this not racist?  

Quote

Look at the Muslim conquest of Spain, or the exploits of Vlad the ImpalerÔĽŅ, or the atrocities of Hundred Years War, or the Wars of the Roses. ¬†European peoples¬†had bÔĽŅeen denying the humanity of and going terrible things to¬†each other, since Vlad the Impaler . . . and well before.ÔĽŅÔĽŅ ¬†

Yes, a lot of groups of people have been doing horrible things to each other since humanity began.  That doesn't mean that racism didn't exist.

Quote

And of course, many of the native Americans were just as brutal (Aztecs, anyone?)

Yes, some were violent cultures and some were peaceful.   They weren't all one culture.

Quote

True and We tend to forget just how much brutality has been a part of human existence across cultures.

I don't think anyone who has studied history forgets how brutal it was.

Quote

¬†People¬†don‚Äôt need a twenty-first-century constrict of ‚Äúracist‚Ä̬†dogma to hurt each other . .

Which doesn't mean racism didn't exist.   Of course racism was and is still present in many cultures, not just European or European settlers.

Quote

Most of usÔĽŅ¬†just need to want something someone else has, and a sincere belief that violence is the most effective¬†way to get it; and then good old-fashioned tribalism fills in whatever moral blanks may be missing from the equation. ¬†

Yes, that is most of it.

Also, don't forget the historical tendancy for humans (of all cultures, races, peoples etc.) to think that there race, religion , culture, way of life, etc. is the "right" one and that everyone who is different is inferior.   That way of thinking has been around for thousands of years.   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Scott said:

[1]Racism was much of it for sure.  They were judged by many because of their race, culture, and religion.

Referring to people as "half men", "wretched savages", "an inferior race", etc. is racism.   So is enslaving someone (many Native Americans were enslaved) because of their racial background.

How is this not racist?  

[2]Yes, a lot of groups of people have been doing horrible things to each other since humanity began.  That doesn't mean that racism didn't exist.

[3]Yes, some were violent cultures and some were peaceful.   They weren't all one culture.

[4]I don't think anyone who has studied history forgets how brutal it was.

[5]Which doesn't mean racism didn't exist.   Of course racism was and is still present in many cultures, not just European or European settlers.

[6]Yes, that is most of it.

Also, don't forget the historical tendancy for humans (of all cultures, races, peoples etc.) to think that there race, religion , culture, way of life, etc. is the "right" one and that everyone who is different is inferior.   That way of thinking has been around for thousands of years.   

 

1. ¬†No one‚Äôs saying there wasn‚Äôt an element of racism involved. ¬†My wariness comes from the facts that a) correlation is ¬†not causation, b)¬†the definition of ‚Äúracism‚ÄĚ is in a state of flux (classically, ‚Äúracism‚ÄĚ was a scenario where people were advocating superiority of a race‚ÄĒa set of immutable characteristics pertaining to origin and¬†physiology. ¬†In modern parlance, some are trying to add additional components to the definition of ‚Äúracism‚ÄĚ‚ÄĒ power dynamics, religious/cultural aspects, etc‚ÄĒin order to set up ‚Äúracism‚ÄĚ as a sin unique to those of European ancestry and pretend that that culture/skin tone is uniquely depraved amongst all humanity; rather than the ultimate expression of what happens when any human has the power to impose his will unopposed); and c) @Jamie123¬†is specifically positing an explanation for colonialism on the American continent that I think is incomplete. ¬†Plenty of cultures (virtually all of them, I daresay) think they‚Äôre better than others; but that doesn‚Äôt mean they all go off and conquer an entire hemisphere. ¬†

2. ¬†Indeed. ¬†My point isn‚Äôt that there was no racism; only that ‚Äúracism‚ÄĚ in the modern sense of the word¬†neither a sine qua non nor the¬†primary cause of such atrocities. ¬†(Tribalism, sure. ¬†Racism, not so much.)

3. ¬†What culture in history¬†had the undeniable, long-term¬†power‚ÄĒthe population, the weaponry, the technology, the administrative state‚ÄĒto extract material goods and labor and sexual¬†partners from its neighbors, and yet elected it to¬†not actually do it? ¬†

4.  Sure, so long as the blame for that brutality is focused almost exclusively on the western civ boogeyman.  

5. ¬†Careful! ¬†By acknowledging that ‚Äúoppressed‚Ä̬†cultures may be themselves ‚Äúracist‚ÄĚ, you‚Äôre coming quite close to latter-day heresy. ;)¬†

6.  Ayup.  

That said, some cultures come up with things that just plain work better; and we shouldn’t be afraid to openly suggest and debate that.

A given plot of land will support more people through agriculture than through hunting/gathering.  

Having a written language works better than not having one.

Being part of a strong family-based community works better than living a life of isolation.

A society with a strong legacy of trust and predictability and peace will enjoy more economic success than a society without such legacies.

Once a certain level of economic stability has been attained, valuing education and science and the arts works better than dismissing those fields.

Stone buildings last longer than mud buildings.  Having guns works better than not having guns.  Having medicine and medical research works better than not having medicine and medical research.

And so on, and so on.  

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/22/2019 at 11:57 PM, Jamie123 said:

ideally, a good mother doesn't have a favourite son/daughter. She loves all her sons and daughters exactly the same.

3 Even those things which were from the beginning before the world was, which were ordained of the Father, through his Only Begotten Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, even from the beginning;

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 76:13)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main thing we can know regarding the Royals is that regardless of what crimes they may have committed, they will never be prosecuted and brought to justice for them. What Andrew is accused of would destroy any normal person, but Andrew is above the law and will get away with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

The main thing we can know regarding the Royals is that regardless of what crimes they may have committed, they will never be prosecuted and brought to justice for them. What Andrew is accused of would destroy any normal person, but Andrew is above the law and will get away with it.

This is not correct. A few years back Princess Anne was convicted of allowing her big dangerous dog to run wild in Windsor Great Park, where it bit two children. So right now she holds the distinction of being the only royal with a criminal record! (Though that could change very soon!)

P.s. Now I think about it that conviction is probably "spent" by now - meaning that technically she no longer has a criminal record. But nevertheless being "royal" did not protect her.

Edited by Jamie123

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, askandanswer said:

3 Even those things which were from the beginning before the world was, which were ordained of the Father, through his Only Begotten Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, even from the beginning;

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 76:13)

Does "only begotten son" mean the same as "favourite son"? (I'm afraid I'm not very familiar with the Doctrine and Covenants - could you find an equivalent quote from The Bible?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/28/2019 at 1:14 AM, mordorbund said:

Wish me luck! I'm off to inform the missus that I've formally adopted this title for domestic use.

 

Well it did not go over well. I don't know what went wrong, I thought my presentation persuasive.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/29/2019 at 5:39 AM, Jamie123 said:

Actually that set me thinking. The origin of the Crown Estates is not something I ever really thought about before, and it's an interesting question.

It seems that in the general "tidying up" that followed the Norman Conquest, all land which was not otherwise spoken for was assumed to belong to the king. (What they did in Anglo-Saxon times I don't know; perhaps all unclaimed land was "up for grabs" - though I daresay it took a brave man to set up on his own with marauding vikings rampaging everywhere. Better to stay on your local theign's land where you had some safety in numbers.) I suppose this could be seen as a "spoil of war" since William had to fight Harold for the throne - though that's hardly the way he would have seen it himself. (He was claiming a throne he considered rightfully his anyway, regardless of whether his invasion had been successful.)

But let me ask you this: when the pioneers moved west across America, claiming lands which had previously belonged to the Native Americans, were they not claiming it on the basis of "class" membership? (White Europeans as opposed to red-skinned "Injuns".) And when Andrew Jackson forced the Cherokee's off their land and onto the "Trail of Tears" was he not stealing land from one "class" of humans in order to give it to another?  Are the people who now "own" that land now having that ownership questioned because it was originally seized from a different class of people in order that they could have it?

The battle between William and Harold is not a "spoils of war" nor a "right of conquest".  The battle between William and Harold are 2 members of the Permanent Class battling over who gets to be King when the Permanent Class Rules of succession comes under question.  It basically amounts to sibling rivarly as the inheritance is passed by blood or marriage which is "My Privilege is higher than Your Privilege". 

This is completely different from the American territories as the Natives held no concept of "property ownership" after the fall of the Nephites and Lamanites.  They were nomads.  The American equivalent to the European gypsies.  Therefore, European settlers taming the land and establishing colonies is the FIRST historical claim to ownership after the fall of Moroni.  Of course, ownership is only good as far as one can defend one's claim to it, hence, the formation of the militia that kept Natives and other settlers out of the land according to the dictates of the land owner.

If you want to equate this to England genesis, you will have to go even farther back from the Heptarchy as even they already have established property ownership as they established Kingdoms - they simply went to war to claim other people's property rather than being the first to settle in an area and claim first ownership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/30/2019 at 12:20 AM, Just_A_Guy said:

We tend to forget just how much brutality has been a part of human existence across cultures. ¬†People didn‚Äôt, and don‚Äôt, need a twenty-first-century construct¬†of ‚Äúracist‚Ä̬†dogma to hurt each other . . . Most of us¬†just need to want something someone else has, and a sincere belief that violence is the most effective¬†way to get it; and then good old-fashioned tribalism fills in whatever moral blanks may be missing from the equation. ¬†

Cain killed Abel.  They were the first siblings on the planet.  It's tradition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now