"Wdtabor" wrote in message
...
In article , "Dan Luke"
writes:

"Wdtabor" wrote:
But I am not trying to compare the relative worth of cultures, I am
comparing results. Had the Amerindian culture rewarded knowledge
and ambition as ours did, considering the vast resources thay had at
their disposal, a successful culture would have been large and strong
enough to resist us.

So conquest and extermination of one culture by another is justified on
the grounds that it's the conquered culture's fault for being weaker
than the conqueror?


There is a difference between something being justified and it's being
inevitable.

OK, let's look at it from a Democrat perspective. There are about 285
million
people in the US, how about if the 2 million wealthiest buy up all the
deeds
and evict the other 283 million, keeping the entire country for
themsleves as
a giant hunting and fishing preserve. What about the 283million homeless,
or
the hundreds of millions of others around the world who will starve to
death if
the US agricultural bounty is converted to a big game park? Would you
allow
that now? Then why would it have been reasonable then?

Those resources simply were not going to be wasted while people starved to
death around the world. Had we not moved in, the Russians would have moved
in
from the northwest, or the Spanish from the south, or the French from
Canada.

It can certainly be said that there were unethical measures used in how
the
transition was made, but the simple truth is that Ameridian culture was
doomed
the moment navigational technology broke their isolation.

Don



--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

Plus, the Europeans did nothing to the Indians that they didn't do to
themselves. Ritual murder, slavery, genocide and torture were all part of
the culture.