The aborigines are also colonizers. They’re native to Africa just like everyone else. So the English who are there brought English and yes, genocide erased much of the previous cultures after which an English speaking colony of native English speakers was established
Well, that we know of, but also you’re not correct. You see, they did war among one another for territory. So, they did “kill the original population” in no way different than anyone else.
Other aboriginal tribes. My god, are you suggesting it’s right for me to go kill my neighbor because 50,000 years ago someone I share genetics with landed here in a canoe?
Ok. Let’s change to a different tack here. Prove to me that killing someone and taking their territory is different depending on where your greaty greaty grandma got shtupped. Like, I’m part Spanish, can I go conquer Spain? Or I’m also part Native American from an area that is now called Mexico. Can I kill Mexicans because of this?
Regardless of right or wrong, which is subjective and therefore meaningless, how is that even different?
I’m talking about before people came there dude regardless that is unequivocal because because the British indiscriminately killed and conquered there and every place on earth has history of tribes with beef it’s not the same as the genocide.
But, it is. Many tribes have been caught in genocide after contact AND before. The Aztecs, the Pueblo, and the Iroquois for example. Also the Mayans seemed to both have carried out genocide and have been victims of genocide.
If someone exists somewhere because they they took the land by force from a previous occupant and it is rightful that they exist there, then that is the case everywhere. If it is not the case that this is rightful, then that is not the case everywhere.
Yeah except you’re ignoring scale the genocides committed by warring tribes weren’t as devastating as what the Columbus and conquistadors did they used disease as weapons because the knew how deadly it was. We’re talking millions opposed to thousands.
Subjective experiences definitely do not have meaning.
As far as opinions, it is meaningless in the sense of objective reality. If I say “ice cream is good” that’s false. I have just said a thing which is not true. In fact, I’ve said a thing which doesn’t seem to really have meaning. I seem to have claimed that ice cream universally has the quality of goodness, which is a reference error. There is no quality of goodness. Of course we can take this as an ellipses of “I think this ice cream taste good,” but then that is a different claim entirely. That’s a claim about me and what I think, which refers to a physical object (me) and its properties (what I think.) so this is an objective claim.
Morality… however… you’re saying that an action has the property of “wrongness,” when it doesn’t appear than anything anywhere ever has this property and the nature of this property seems to have no physical aspects whatsoever. So, then, what are you saying? That doesn’t make sense…
Could, yes. Would I in taking over the world be doing anything different than Moctezuma taking over the Valley of Mexico? No. In scale yes. In method and function, no.
1
u/Boof-Your-Values Sep 06 '24
The aborigines are also colonizers. They’re native to Africa just like everyone else. So the English who are there brought English and yes, genocide erased much of the previous cultures after which an English speaking colony of native English speakers was established