Can you justify the European conquest of the Americas?

[Custom+Hybrid]

Can anyone help me make some valid points?

I have a debate on this next week!
Sadly I am on the side saying that the Europeans coming to the new world had a POSITIVE effect on the Natives.

Plz only intelligent comments.
I already know im screwed lol.

 

[stormholloway]

I can justify it with one word: freedom.

Just put a giant picture of George W. Bush on the overhead projector, point to it and say "Freedom. Any questions?". Then walk out of the room.

 

[Custom+Hybrid]

I was afraid i would get b/s answers like this

its cool tho have ur fun lol.

 

[YULitle]

Yeah, Storm's approach is good.

But, to finish it off, you need to know how to handle rebuttals. Follow this simple pattern:
"To say.... (repeat whatever student says) .... is un-American and un-patriotic."
It also helps to have the largest American flag lapel pin.

 

[Custom+Hybrid]

I am actually Canadian.

Unpatriotic.

Good word =]]

I'll put that somewhere in the closing statement

 

[YULitle]

Yeah, it's power is it's versatility and it's being unquestionable. Say, why don't you ask a native american first hand? Write a letter.

How,

I know the European invasion many many years ago kind of sucked for you, and I'm sure that it's taken a long time to overcome the loss of the vast majority of your people, the obliteration of entire unique tribes and the general demoralization of your people. But, what would you say... are the up sides? Let's pretend it's Thanksgiving (you remember that day, right?) For what, in regards to Western civilization, are you thankful?

Regards


I'm sure you'll get a warm response to that.

 

[Custom+Hybrid]

Puh-leaze

I dont actually think it was good stupid!

I have a marked debate and it counts for my standing in a course!

No matter what I believe I have to be on this side
Poke all the fun you want sir but I'm winning this hands down

 

[YULitle]

To say

I dont actually think it was good stupid!

is unAmerican and unpatriotic.

 

[Custom+Hybrid]

That alone won't score points.

Thats like having a great forehand
and no footwork, serve, netgame, etc.

 

[YULitle]

Saying that having just a great forehand isn't enough is unAmerican, unPatriotic and socialistic (reaching into antiquity now .) Do you hate god? Do you hate freedom?
*waves flag*
Do you hate liberty? Do you hate democracy?

 

[Custom+Hybrid]

Lol

I think I get your point.
More opinions plz.

 

[Vision84]

For a real argument then say that you brought them civilization and list all the things.

 

[YULitle]

I was having fun....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_White_Man's_Burden

 

[YULitle]

For a real argument then say that you brought them civilization and list all the things.

I would say that they were civilized enough. And any argument against their potential for development would be sketchy, at best.

civ-i-li-za-tion - cities or populated areas in general, as opposed to unpopulated or wilderness areas

I know there are many "definitions" of that word, but this one fits my argument.

 

[Custom+Hybrid]

How can we shake off 90% of them dying due to disease?

 

[Trainer]

I think that there is an argument here. You will need to provide context for the situation in Europe and the situation that native Americans had. Was their culture always the pristine, perfect society that it is often portrayed as? Was the Aztec culture a positive force for human rights?

Your argument will have to justify the obvious tragedies of the conquest by pointing to the overall good to humanity that American society eventually resulted in. And to do this:

1. Contrast the Religious Monarchies of Europe with the Free Republic of America.

2. Contrast the tribal, warring, and primitive societies of Native Americans with the modern American society.

and then show that the result of the conquest is better for humanity than either.

As a matter of fact, I think that this is a winning argument that I agree with. Europe was a travesty, led by egotistical, inbred, monarchs all squabbling over world domination. And the pristine image of early native Americans ignores the masochistic, primitive, uneducated cultures that they had.

 

[Steve1954]

Is this college or HS? I sure wouldn't do this to my students. Anyway, I don't think you should try to justify the conquest, but turn it on its head and explain it.

First, emphasize that most of the deaths from disease were accidental and unavoidable. There are a few instances of deliberate attempts to spread disease, but most of the natives who died were infected through casual rather than deliberate contact. Also counter that the Europeans also died of native diseases such as the syphilis epidemic of the sixteenth century in Europe.

Second, bring in the animals the Europeans brought to the New World, such as horses, cattle and sheep. The horse, for example, transformed the lives of many native tribes.

Third, bring in multiculturalism. Canada is a multicultural society, it has English and French and Native elements. The US society has European, Asian, African and Native elements. Latin American society has Spanish, Portuguese, Native and African elements.

Finally, don't forget religion here. The Catholic influence in Latin America and Canada, the Protestant influence in the US and Canada, and so on. You can certainly argue religion had a positive effect on the morality and social customs of the natives, along the lines that Trainer suggested. After all, the Aztecs took captives from other native tribes and cut out their hearts in human sacrifice, something the Europeans put a stop to. The Spanish didn't conquer the Aztecs by themselves, they had the help of native allies.

You're still going to lose, but you can at least make a fight of it. Maybe you can get extra points for degree of difficulty from your teacher.

 

[stormholloway]

Just show your class all of the success the Indians have had with their casinos. Surely without the white man that couldn't have been possible.

 

[Phil]

I think that there is an argument here. You will need to provide context for the situation in Europe and the situation that native Americans had. Was their culture always the pristine, perfect society that it is often portrayed as? Was the Aztec culture a positive force for human rights?

Your argument will have to justify the obvious tragedies of the conquest by pointing to the overall good to humanity that American society eventually resulted in. And to do this:

1. Contrast the Religious Monarchies of Europe with the Free Republic of America.

2. Contrast the tribal, warring, and primitive societies of Native Americans with the modern American society.

and then show that the result of the conquest is better for humanity than either.

As a matter of fact, I think that this is a winning argument that I agree with. Europe was a travesty, led by egotistical, inbred, monarchs all squabbling over world domination. And the pristine image of early native Americans ignores the masochistic, primitive, uneducated cultures that they had.

Funny, but this is almost the exact same "spin" that the Chinese Communist leaders have put on their annexation of Tibet and the destruction of its culture. They stress that before China came in and imposed its "benign" spirit of modern development, Tibet was a chaotic and feudal mess. Trainer and the Chinese Commies...hmmm...birds of a feather?

I'd love to see you present your "argument" in front of a roomful of native Americans. Or Tibetans. Just be sure to wear kevlar.

 

[crazysoccer00]

Don't take this personally, but I would just like to debate some of your points as it seems to be relevant to the OP's concerns

I think that there is an argument here. You will need to provide context for the situation in Europe and the situation that native Americans had. Was their culture always the pristine, perfect society that it is often portrayed as? Was the Aztec culture a positive force for human rights?


Your argument will have to justify the obvious tragedies of the conquest by pointing to the overall good to humanity that American society eventually resulted in. And to do this:

1. Contrast the Religious Monarchies of Europe with the Free Republic of America.

How does concern the Native Americans? Whatever was happening in Europe, however bad it was, had no impact on how the Native Americans were living. Are you saying that the impact of the Free republic of America is better than the negative aspects that the European monarchies had on the Native Americans? One could make the argument that the if the European didn't come to America in the first place, the Native Americans wouldn't have had to deal with the Religious European monarchies.

2. Contrast the tribal, warring, and primitive societies of Native Americans with the modern American society.
and then show that the result of the conquest is better for humanity than either.

As a matter of fact, I think that this is a winning argument that I agree with. Europe was a travesty, led by egotistical, inbred, monarchs all squabbling over world domination. And the pristine image of early native Americans ignores the masochistic, primitive, uneducated cultures that they had.

Tribal warring, human rights depravation and other practices of the Aztecs, etc that you mentioned can not be used to characterize the entire Native Americans. Yes, they were practiced and common among certain tribes, but how can you say that those practices are any worse than the wars or other tragedies of the Free American Society?
A question someone can ask is "The Native Americans lived in their culture (how ever primitive it may seem to us mondern folks) for thousands of years. How can you justify that their culture or life style was worse than a 500 year culture that has already experienced tremendous overpopulation, wars with millions of casualties, environmental damages?"
Yes we brought them technology, idea of human right, and other BS of the New World. But honestly, do these "positives" outweigh the past tragedies that the Native Americans had to go through?

In my mind, no.

I guess this is what you call "respecitvely disagreeing"

 

[Trainer]

Tribal warring, human rights depravation and other practices of the Aztecs, etc that you mentioned can not be used to characterize the entire Native Americans.

No, but nothing can characterize the "entire Native Americans". They were a diverse group, but the fact is, many of the dominant tribes had notably barbaric practices.

Yes we brought them technology, idea of human right, and other BS of the New World.

Well, if you see these things as "BS", then yea, I guess you're right... :?

But I sort of think that these things are pretty valuable in the world. In fact, I think that these things are ultimately necessary for the advancement of ANY civilization. Including the native Americans.

But honestly, do these "positives" outweigh the past tragedies that the Native Americans had to go through?

In my mind, no.

I guess this is what you call "respecitvely disagreeing"

Or, respectively disagreeing.... .

 

[Trainer]

Funny, but this is almost the exact same "spin" that the Chinese Communist leaders have put on their annexation of Tibet and the destruction of its culture. They stress that before China came in and imposed its "benign" spirit of modern development, Tibet was a chaotic and feudal mess. Trainer and the Chinese Commies...hmmm...birds of a feather?

I'd love to see you present your "argument" in front of a roomful of native Americans. Or Tibetans. Just be sure to wear kevlar.

Talk to the hand fool

 

[YULitle]

I think that these things are ultimately necessary for the advancement of ANY civilization. Including that native Americans.

This depends entirely on your definition of the word "advancement."

 

[YULitle]

Shut up jerk....

An interesting point. Care to expound upon that?

 

[buder]

The expansion of the white European male is no different than the territorial behavior of a lion on the great plains of Africa.

The Natives did not have the means to protect their land and grow their population. They were lower on the food chain. It was their biological destiny to succumb to the powerful (otherwise they would have been endowed with the power to protect themselves).

Had the White European male not displaced them, some other "lion" would have. Please understand power vacuums: nature did not intend for biological organisms to live in peace. Life is a restaurant: big fish eat little fish.

Let your class know that you don't intend to sugarcoat nature.

Progress is an omelet, and you cannot make an omelet without breaking some eggs. The natives are [pause] broken eggs. Life is not fair. Own it. Some day you may be on nature's chopping block (see the dinosaurs and Rome).

When a deer is hunted and killed by a lion, we do not say that something bad or unfair has happened. We say that nature is functioning as it should.

Your argument should be based on biological imperatives -- and how following those imperatives is correct (otherwise we would not be here). Read your Freud: if you deny nature, you lose in the end. Start with Oedipus.

Don't think like a idealistic lefty and look for "social justice" in nature. Don't drink the Religious kool-aid and look for good and evil in nature. Think about biology and survival. Humans are animals, they are in nature, and animals in nature expand their territory when it benefits them. Don't try to say that the Natives benefited (this is ideological garbage: the transactions of nature are based on self-interest. To think otherwise is dated Enlightenment Optimism, e.g., Adam Smith's invisible hand is a gross oversimplification: utopia is not built into self-interest > there are winners and losers)

Think like a Nietzschean. Nature did not make us equal. Nature made some animals stronger. When a stronger animal destroys or displaces a weaker animal, he is responding to a biological imperative.

Nature is good because nature is why we are here. .

 

[Trainer]

An interesting point. Care to expound upon that?

Nope, that's my automatic response to phil. Or, something like that

 

[Trainer]

This depends entirely on your definition of the word "advancement."

Sure, I guess if you're a Islamic Terrorist, a N@zi, or a Communist, human rights and freedom would be a detriment....

 

[Phil]

Talk to the hand fool

Yeah, figured you had nothing after that lame post of yours. Thanks for proving me right, again.

 

[Trainer]

Yeah, figured you had nothing

Nothing for you fool. Babble on beyotch.

 

[Phil]

Nothing for you fool. Babble on beyotch.

You need to do a better job of trying to use intellilgence to disguise the fact that you're a dimwit! How old are you, anyway-14?

 

[lethalfang]

Can you really justify European conquest of the Americans? Probably not, but for historical events like these, there are always some positive effects.
The Europeans brought modern science and technology.
European invasion united Native American tribes, who were constantly at war with each other for hundreds of not thousands of years.

 

[Trainer]

intellilgence

Muaaaahahah....wtf is that???

Must suck to be u

 

[YULitle]

Sure, I guess if you're a Islamic Terrorist, a N@zi, or a Communist, human rights and freedom would be a detriment....

Uhhhhhh... What?

 

[Trainer]

Uhhhhhh... What?

If you're taking a relativistic approach to advancement, then yea, it depends on your philosophy. My personal view is that advancement requires human rights and representation in your government.

 

[YULitle]

If you're taking a relativistic approach to advancement, then yea, it depends on your philosophy. My personal view is that advancement requires human rights and representation in your government.

I guess we just noticed different parts of the same post. I was referring more to the technology part, and I assume you were criticizing the "human rights" part.

 

[Phil]

Muaaaahahah....wtf is that???

Must suck to be u

Yeah, you can correct my spelling in all my posts. I need an alert assistant. Otherwise, you got nuthin'. Bet you're happy now.

 

[Trainer]

Yeah, you can correct my spelling in all my posts. I need an alert assistant. Otherwise, you got nuthin'. Bet you're happy now.

Bite me sh!tferbrains....go be a jerk to someone else...

 

[Phil]

...go be a jerk to someone else...

No, you'll do just fine, spanky.

 

[ollinger]

Can you justify conquest of any kind? Morally? No. The question is an ethical anachronism, kind of like the way the term "manifest destiny" was presented to me as a student as if it were the words of God.

 

[serve/and/volley]

Justifying European conquest of the Americas is one way of getting rid of your White Guilt:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_guilt

 

[Custom+Hybrid]

Thx for your opinions everyone.
This is a High school debate not college.

I'd love to read more responses

 

[NLBwell]

Yes, It made the Europeans better off.

At no point in history have people not conquered (or attempted to conquer) others. There were many tribes wiped out by other tribes in the Americas. Lots of natives in both North and South America have been wiped out, The Aztecs and Incas conquered many tribes to expand as far as they did. The Cherokees and Choctaws (part of my heritage) fought for generations. Only in recent centuries has western/Christian thought spread far enough that things like slavery and conquering other nations were examined as possibly being wrong. There may have been other philosophies that agreed with such things, but they were not strong enough to have their view hold sway.

 

[BreakPoint]

Justifying European conquest of the Americas is one way of getting rid of your White Guilt:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_guilt

Voting for Barack Obama is another way.

 

[Custom+Hybrid]

Thanks everybody I scored a great mark even though I lost by votes.

We had some slip-ups but overall we really impressed our teacher thanks for your contributions I really wouldn't have thought of half that stuff without your guys' imput.