Would the world be better off with out us?
- Yes
- No
- Depends
0
voters
Do you think the world would be better or worse off if america was never discovered/developed.
i.e native americans allowed to stay
Face it - If America wasn’t in America, it would just be someplace else.
that was my opriginal thought, the great britain would have probubly been “america” but think about it, less resources, more imperialization different world
Didn’t the Red Indians discover America at one point too? Ditto the Aborigines Australia. This being the case, it would paradoxical for America to remain undiscovered by humans whilst hosting a population of them 
(I know, this isn’t the question, but what the hell!)
were allowing the native americans to stay, but nobody else.
because under beliefs similar to that of hozho deisrie for sociological harmony with nature prevents massive development of land (as we have done)
You mean the people who would drive a whole herd of bison over a cliff just for a few kills?
Tell me, what do you know in detail about ‘Native’ Americans? I know next to nothing, due to the shoddy history education I received. Certainly not enough to hold them up as examples of some superior group of humans who got it all right, like you are doing.
No offence, but this sounds like the old liberal nonsense of riding around in a limousine telling everyone how ‘natural’ groups of people are so much better.
i voted no.damned corruption is inescapable.seems just to go up with population,period. that and america had some good ideas.at least at first.
hey,picture the arabs colonizing america FIRST 
well as far as te native american thing.
we really screwed them over.
They lived to maintain this idea of Hozho, a sort of harmony with nature.
The entire basis of living was based around this idea. You wanted to obtain this on a socital and personal level.
The idea of developing land to a massive extent was contradictory to this ideal…
but i see you’re point.
[i]lets just say america is nothing,
there is a big gap of water between canada and mexico[/i]
just for the sake of argument[/i]
‘we’? I did nothing to screw over Native Americans. Unlike you, I’m not convinced by this ‘we’ that is used by liberal fascist guiltmongers…
I’m not convinced this is true because I’ve heard it a lot but never seen the slightest evidence. Is this like ‘Africa didn’t have slaves before Europeans got there’ i.e. one of those pleasant sounding myths designed to maintain certain conceptions of the world?
I didn’t want anything. I am not nor have I ever been a Native American (who as I understand it were a group of different tribes who didn’t all share the same customs ergo any such ‘they lived according to the idea of whateverthefuck’ is just wrong).
Right - and what makes you think that the Native Americans, or some of them at least, might not have developed these ideas without European involvement?
That isn’t my argument. I’m asking whether you have the slightest grounds for your primitivist revisionism where the sun shines out of the arse of Native Americans but they became horribly corrupted by those nasty white people (who, again, aren’t a uniform set of people and therefore any ‘they conform to whateverthefuck’ is just wrong).
This is the same primitivist politics we’ve seen in Rousseau, and he was wrong too.
No use crying over spilt milk. it is what it is. SIATD is right as far as I am concerned, I fully agree with him. I was raised around different Indian nations in AZ. Each had different beliefs and customs about earth and being civilized. I learned much about history that is not in the Politically correct or Biased history books. Believe me the white man did not teach them about slavery,bigotry nor about conquering. I can assure you that if these folks had the technology and the populations, they would have invaded other countries, Much like the Mongols, Romans, etc… did. As it was they spent a lot of time invading each other along with trading with each other.
The only thing that truly gave Europeans the advantage was population and accsess to technology. The Indians had better and more ruthless fighting skills plus homeland knowledge. If the Indians had better weapons and more people,history would have been written differently. I feel no guilt, no debt is owed them, I did not do it. People have been invading and conquering lands since the beginning of human civilization. It happens still.
kriswest, being raised in AZ, and most likly being held in contact with navajo tribes, they held this idea of Hozho to the strongest degree, so if you’re still in contact with any, find out the grounds on it there, becasue i know “hozho” is the correct term there
i may be speaking in generalities, and i probubly should have specified to ruels to this subject argument.
but i have to disagree with one of SIATD’s comments. I thinks its fair to say that under we, i mean the early settlers who colonized america. I dont think that there is any debate over the fatc that we did screw the native americans over. and then intodays day and age we try making it up to them by granting them tax free land. It really is a shame. personally i too, feel no guilt, and i think the only reason anyone does is becasue we have to live with them.
Perhaps so, but why isolate this example? Given your value system you could just as easy talk about South America or Australasia (in terms of European colonisation) as examples of ‘indigenous’ ‘cultures’ who are ‘in touch with’ ‘nature’ who were ruined and slaughtered by colonists.
‘them’ - who?
The fact is that no matter who you are, chances you are ancestors were tortured, raped, killed, invaded, colonised, enslaved or something similarly terrible. A much, much more valuable thing to be talking about is who is suffering from such things now.
the answer to this one is quick and certain 
The World without counciousness would be… (as it has been for eons) nevertheless having self conciuosness is amaizing.
As Carl Sagan put it: “We are a way for the universe to know itself”.
These ‘ifs’ are an illusion. The Europeans had these advantages for a reason. The Red Indians, or any isolated indigenous population, are vunerable.
Take SIATD’s example - the buffalo over the cliff. How is such waste tolerable…? If the resource way overmatches the mouth-count. Without scarcity - or any other socio-evolutionary driver - you plateau, get into ancestor worship and chewing peyote - cultural suburbia. Whilst in the hard inner city of Europe, the street-gang countries get tooled up and practice their moves.
Dodo-syndrome. If you have no predators, you forget how to fly. Get fat. And get bopped on the head by the first boat of Sailors.
It’s not nice, but you Yanks shouldn’t feel overly bad about it. Even I get twitchy when I see a guy passed out at a table with his wallet hanging out of his pocket. Human nature.
LOL The navajo nation is only one of the many Indian cultures I grew up with click this, http://ag.arizona.edu/edrp/tribes.html
I don’t think we screwed them over. Hell they get more breaks then anyone else. The overall wealth of the tribes makes me wish I had more Indian blood in me, Darn the luck though, most of my ancestors did not have the forsight to think of it. Plus they have all the rights of an average US citizen and yet are dependents in perpetuity for as long as they want.
Oh Yea sure ,we screwed them over/Bull. They got conquered like many other people did worldwide, they lost and now they are treated better then any other citizen, Just how did they get screwed? I don’t see it. I think I am getting screwed by this unfair treatment. Why don’t I get what they get? Money / land/ tax breaks/ Supplies for living. I want that too.
Oh yea, thats right because some of my ancestors were horrible hideous trespassers that did what historically was acceptable and still acceptable. They conquered the nations of Indians.
It was what it was, someone had to lose. Putting modern morals and ethics on actions that took place so long ago and making descendents pay for what was acceptable then, is a worse thing,it is morally and ethically wrong.
Rest of the world? You mean there’s some world outside the USA?
I partially agree with you Kriswest but…
If it’s OK for the white man to kill and steal from the Indians because ‘that’s what they did in those days’, then it’s equally right for the Indians to steal from the white man through the courts because ‘that’s what they do nowadays’.
Theft is theft; the only difference is the tactics. Both the military and the legislative tactics reflect the most effective means of stealing for that period.
[size=84](PS I don’t agree the Indians have stolen from the taxpayer but I have use that term because a lot of taxpayers see it that way and I want to focus on tactics not definitions)[/size]
All property is theft.
For instance how can anyone own anything like land unless they make the claim of ownership and then defend that claim though some form of force? If they can keep that land for long enough then they eventually build up a tradition around their claim. It gains legitimacy from its endurance. Men steal from each other, government steal from men or maybe they eventually exchange what they “own†in a civilized manner.
If the british didn’t qwn the American Indians, I think the Spanish would have screwed them over, or somethin’…
Kris, "thou shalt not kill"… "thou shalt not steal"… “love your enemies as yourself” etc are not “modern morals and ethics†Your great, great grandparents are being judged on laws at least 2000 year old and the very moral laws they accepted as being true and right AT THAT TIME.
There were enough Christians at the time who were against the Indian slaughter to know that these laws were understood. It was simply a matter of choosing to abide by them or not… as it is today.