DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Love God Only
HTML https://lovegodonly.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Politics
*****************************************************
#Post#: 18255--------------------------------------------------
What is the Doctrine of Discovery?
DIR By: HOLLAND
Date: April 10, 2018, 7:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Culture wars can be very exasperating given that they lead to
subjects that can be quite painful to everyone. This part of
the culture war, so to speak, is going to change Western
Civilization, I think. It's going to lead to a rethinking of
the history of the expansion of the West into the New World and
into the lands of Asia and Africa.
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3oc84aLC-Q
This Doctrine of Discovery is not found in the Roman Catholic
church's Enchiridion Symbolorum, the major primary source used
by its systematic theologians. It will lead to a more intensive
examination of racism in human society and this will eventually
encompass not only racism but the thinking behind all religious
wars and jihads as well. This is going to damage Christianity,
particularly Roman Catholicism, in the eyes of many, as
religious wars have damaged Islam. Religious jihads and
crusades just don't work . . .
#Post#: 18257--------------------------------------------------
Re: What is the Doctrine of Discovery?
DIR By: paralambano
Date: April 11, 2018, 12:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Holland - ^
Ya, religious wars are stupid. The other kind could be necessary
like the one where Hitler got creamed.
para . . . .
#Post#: 18258--------------------------------------------------
Re: What is the Doctrine of Discovery?
DIR By: HOLLAND
Date: April 11, 2018, 4:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: paralambano link ---
>
> Holland - ^
>
> Ya, religious wars are stupid. The other kind could be
necessary like the one where Hitler got creamed.
>
>
> para . . . .
>
--- End Quote ---
What I've found puzzling about this, para, is that the Roman
Catholic Enchiridion Symbolorum lacks the Doctrine of Discovery
magisterial documents in the collection. I suppose when this
controversy heats up, they'll be included in the collection for
reference purposes.
I'm assuming that in the Catholic church, the doctrine and
documents are regarded as a moral and cultural aberration and
not as binding doctrine for the Roman Catholic church. We shall
see, I guess.
Certainly wars with Hitler-like entities are necessary though I,
as a Quaker, am hesitant about easily endorsing them. Wars,
many times do not solve the issue in question but create more
problems. So how it goes with violence . . .
#Post#: 18259--------------------------------------------------
Re: What is the Doctrine of Discovery?
DIR By: Kerry
Date: April 12, 2018, 12:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: HOLLAND link ---
>
> Culture wars can be very exasperating given that they lead to
subjects that can be quite painful to everyone. This part of
the culture war, so to speak, is going to change Western
Civilization, I think. It's going to lead to a rethinking of
the history of the expansion of the West into the New World and
into the lands of Asia and Africa.
>
--- End Quote ---
I believe the man who made that video is Navaho. Perhaps he
without sin should cast the first stone? Perhaps he should
study the history of his own people? What right did they have
to migrate and take over land that had been occupied by other
tribes? That happened, I believe, around 1400 AD.
This reminds me of how the Zulus in South Africa have accused
the white man of stealing their land. What they either don't
know or admit is that they had stolen it from other tribes
themselves.
As for the "Indians" being savages? I think it's fairly
accurate some of them could be described that way. If the man
who made this video doesn't like the culture of the white man,
maybe he could give up all the things of the white man?
I think maybe the solution to such things is to forgive the
errors of the past by those seen as "the enemy". This man seems
bent on resurrecting them.
--- Quote ---
> This Doctrine of Discovery is not found in the Roman Catholic
church's Enchiridion Symbolorum, the major primary source used
by its systematic theologians. It will lead to a more intensive
examination of racism in human society and this will eventually
encompass not only racism but the thinking behind all religious
wars and jihads as well. This is going to damage Christianity,
particularly Roman Catholicism, in the eyes of many, as
religious wars have damaged Islam. Religious jihads and
crusades just don't work . . .
--- End Quote ---
If a Catholic had started this debate, I'd side against him. It
would motivate me to discuss the errors of the white man and
Christianity.
However a Navaho cast the first stone, so my emphasis would be
to look at the history and errors of his people; and the
Navaho can be criticized too. I find we are all alike, none is
innocent. He can cast stones at the white man and
Christianity, but what good does it do him? What solace does
he find?
#Post#: 18262--------------------------------------------------
Re: What is the Doctrine of Discovery?
DIR By: HOLLAND
Date: April 12, 2018, 8:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Kerry link ---
>
> I believe the man who made that video is Navaho. Perhaps he
without sin should cast the first stone? Perhaps he should
study the history of his own people? What right did they have
to migrate and take over land that had been occupied by other
tribes? That happened, I believe, around 1400 AD.
>
> This reminds me of how the Zulus in South Africa have accused
the white man of stealing their land. What they either don't
know or admit is that they had stolen it from other tribes
themselves.
--- End Quote ---
You are quite correct on this, Kerry. This shall be the
expected response to the controversy of the Doctrine of
Discovery. As the realization of sin and guilt expands out and
encompasses all of the races, it will complete the destruction
of the idea of racial superiority on the part of any significant
segment of people. That is going to be the radical consequence
of this controversy.
--- Quote ---
> As for the "Indians" being savages? I think it's fairly
accurate some of them could be described that way. If the man
who made this video doesn't like the culture of the white man,
maybe he could give up all the things of the white man?
--- End Quote ---
The "Indians" practiced total war and so could be regarded as
savages in their conduct of war torturing and killing men, women
and children. Their technology, though, was perfectly adapted
to their environment and their social system was perfected to
allow for an enhanced libertarianism that may whites admire. I
would agree that no "Indian" would give up all things of the
white man.
--- Quote ---
> I think maybe the solution to such things is to forgive the
errors of the past by those seen as "the enemy". This man seems
bent on resurrecting them. If a Catholic had started this
debate, I'd side against him.
--- End Quote ---
It was the papacy itself that came up with the Doctrine of
Discovery that the discovered lands of non-Christians are open
for seizure and their inhabitants slain or enslaved.
--- Quote ---
> It would motivate me to discuss the errors of the white man
and Christianity.
>
> However a Navaho cast the first stone, so my emphasis would be
to look at the history and errors of his people; and the
Navaho can be criticized too. I find we are all alike, none is
innocent. He can cast stones at the white man and
Christianity, but what good does it do him? What solace does
he find?
>
--- End Quote ---
I agree, Kerry, but the significance of this controversy will
lead to a significant change in the understanding of the time of
discovery that occurred when Europe expanded outward, and
Christianity's place within it. The controversy will end the
present political culture war given that it shows its hostility
to human freedom and dignity, and that may be its primary
significance.
#Post#: 18264--------------------------------------------------
Re: What is the Doctrine of Discovery?
DIR By: paralambano
Date: April 12, 2018, 9:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Holland -
I think this Pope's talking about human freedom and dignity. The
other ones might have been unfortunate products in part of their
zeitgeist as this one could be as well.
para . . . .
#Post#: 18265--------------------------------------------------
Re: What is the Doctrine of Discovery?
DIR By: HOLLAND
Date: April 12, 2018, 1:56 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: paralambano link ---
>
> Holland -
>
> I think this Pope's talking about human freedom and dignity.
The other ones might have been unfortunate products in part of
their zeitgeist as this one could be as well.
>
>
> para . . . .
>
--- End Quote ---
I agree, para. The zeitgeist has been very strong in people and
institutions over the millennia and it is a wise person that
challenges it in its basic trend. There has been a lot of
regrettable pronouncements of the papacy over the centuries.
There has been the Inquisition. Now there is this Doctrine of
Discovery. One of the effects on that church will be that it
will never be able to go back to a pre-Vatican II traditionalism
however hotly it is contested for by that church's
conservatives. Human society is multi-racial and
multi-religious. We are all going to have to live together.
This is bad for the social conservatives nostalgic for a 1950s
America where everyone seemingly had his or her place. It has
diminished racial privilege in America as a conservative value.
This culture war will go on and many will find that all have
sinned and fallen from the glory of God and that we all are the
equals of everybody else. In the end, this will enrich us all.
#Post#: 18270--------------------------------------------------
Re: What is the Doctrine of Discovery?
DIR By: Kerry
Date: April 12, 2018, 3:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: HOLLAND link ---
>
> You are quite correct on this, Kerry. This shall be the
expected response to the controversy of the Doctrine of
Discovery. As the realization of sin and guilt expands out and
encompasses all of the races, it will complete the destruction
of the idea of racial superiority on the part of any significant
segment of people. That is going to be the radical consequence
of this controversy.
--- End Quote ---
Sorry, but I can't see it working that way. Progress may be
possible when one group practices self-criticism and corrects
itself without denigrating other groups.
Ever wonder why the Doctrine of Discovery worked? Cultures
steeped in tribalism and protecting their own little groups are
sitting ducks if a larger more unified power invades.
Forgetting the white man momentarily, we saw how that worked in
both North and South America with the Aztec and Inca Empires.
The Incans were very scientific in their approach to war:
Conquer one group in one tract of land and then stop for about
50 years -- wait for that group to be assimilated before taking
on another.
The defect -- and I say it is a defect for practical reasons --
is that tribalism seldom provides true security. The "Indian"
governments could not defend their own people. One factor was
surely their lack cooperation with each other to form a unified
whole that defended them all.
The video gave an example of a court case where one man bought
land from an Indian tribe and another from the white man's
government. Who won the case? He seemed outraged by that; but
if he were here, I'd ask him if he'd buy land from a Palestinian
today who said he owned a parcel of land in the occupied
territory. He said it was his by right and he could sell it.
Take an example from America. Would you buy land from a Navaho
who told you his ancestors owned a piece of land and it was his
to sell when you could see that under the white man's law, a
white man owned it and he also had it up for sale? Who would
you choose to buy it from? I'd say no one would buy it from
the Navaho. The "rights" and "wrongs" of it are irrelevant.
You would buy it from the "white man" since his government
recognizes his ownership and his right to sell it and has the
power to enforce its decisions. You'd tell the Navaho,
"That's tough for you. Maybe you should own it; but if I give
you money for it, there is no guarantee I'll ever be able to
take ownership in fact."
Any government that fails in its ability to enforce its
decisions on how it protects the rights of its citizens will
lose legitimacy and fade away. We can talk about the religious
angle to it; but the facts seem simple enough to me -- tribal
cultures around the world were unable to withstand invasions by
the white man. And worse, when the white man withdrew and
granted people the right to "self-determination," they
frequently fell back into their old ways of tribalism. It may
have been worse after the white man left than before they
arrived since the people they conquered learned about guns and
other deadlier forms of warfare than spears.
--- Quote ---
> The "Indians" practiced total war and so could be regarded as
savages in their conduct of war torturing and killing men, women
and children. Their technology, though, was perfectly adapted
to their environment and their social system was perfected to
allow for an enhanced libertarianism that may whites admire. I
would agree that no "Indian" would give up all things of the
white man.
--- End Quote ---
What I see is that the culture of the Americas was becoming more
brutal over time as the Incan and Aztec Empires grew. Both
practiced human sacrifice. The tribes they conquered were not
prepared to defend themselves.
--- Quote ---
> It was the papacy itself that came up with the Doctrine of
Discovery that the discovered lands of non-Christians are open
for seizure and their inhabitants slain or enslaved.
--- End Quote ---
Who takes the assertion seriously? People adopt whatever
position that is convenient at the moment. Nothing demonstrates
this more than the Irish conflict which started when the only
Englishman elected to be Pope decided the Irish were barbaric
pagans and needed to be converted. This is strange indeed since
one could say Ireland kept Christianity alive during much of the
Dark Ages; but it gets stranger. So the Pope said Ireland
belonged to the King of England.
Where it gets stranger is after Henry VIII rebelled against
Rome. Do you think that the kings of England who threw off the
bonds of serving Rome now said that Ireland should be
independent? You know they didn't. They were still saying
Ireland belonged to them. . . because a Pope said so? To
complete the picture of strangeness, the Catholics in Ireland
took the opposite stance, saying Ireland should be independent
and no King of England should govern them. The Catholics were
rebelling against the authority of the Popes to say what king
owned what land. Both sides were wobbly when it comes to
taking a stand based on principles. They chose what was
convenient at the time.
--- Quote ---
> I agree, Kerry, but the significance of this controversy will
lead to a significant change in the understanding of the time of
discovery that occurred when Europe expanded outward, and
Christianity's place within it. The controversy will end the
present political culture war given that it shows its hostility
to human freedom and dignity, and that may be its primary
significance.
--- End Quote ---
I don't see it as a uniquely white man or Christian phenomenon.
The increase in the militarization of Christianity was in large
part in reaction to the growing Muslim Empire. What can easily
be reviled as aggressive "crusades" and often is today was
really more alarm at the invasion of Christian territories.
Today some Muslims still say Spain belongs to them and the
Christians stole it. They use the word "crusade" in an attempt
to paint the Christians as warmongers. I don't think it was
that way.
There was curious news from Puerto Rico involving the vagueness
about who owns what land. It played a role in the recovery
effort in Puerto Rico where some people were living on land they
considered their own and nobody challenged them; but there was
no land title and no one in the government knew who owned what.
The federal grants said however you had to show the property
was yours before you got the money.
If one role of the government is to protect the right of people
to own property in peace, then I think the government has to
have a method of determining who truly owns what, maintaining
records of sales and inheritances. We could say if the informal
system of ownership worked for the people in Puerto Rico, no
one should tell them to change their way of doing things; but if
you take that approach, it means anyone stronger and better
armed than you could take your house and say it was his and not
yours, and who could prove otherwise?
#Post#: 18272--------------------------------------------------
Re: What is the Doctrine of Discovery?
DIR By: paralambano
Date: April 12, 2018, 4:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Holland -
--- Quote ---
> Human society is multi-racial and multi-religious. We are all
going to have to live together.
--- End Quote ---
I hear we're all apparently pink and stink on the inside :).
You know, the enemies of all humans are sin, sickness and death
ultimately. We all have to work these things out individually
sooner or later. The later ones might be causing some trouble.
para . . . .
#Post#: 18300--------------------------------------------------
Re: What is the Doctrine of Discovery?
DIR By: HOLLAND
Date: April 15, 2018, 8:16 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Kerry link ---
>
> Sorry, but I can't see it working that way. Progress may be
possible when one group practices self-criticism and corrects
itself without denigrating other groups.
>
> Ever wonder why the Doctrine of Discovery worked? Cultures
steeped in tribalism and protecting their own little groups are
sitting ducks if a larger more unified power invades.
Forgetting the white man momentarily, we saw how that worked in
both North and South America with the Aztec and Inca Empires.
The Incans were very scientific in their approach to war:
Conquer one group in one tract of land and then stop for about
50 years -- wait for that group to be assimilated before taking
on another.
>
> The defect -- and I say it is a defect for practical reasons
-- is that tribalism seldom provides true security. The
"Indian" governments could not defend their own people. One
factor was surely their lack cooperation with each other to
form a unified whole that defended them all.
>
> The video gave an example of a court case where one man bought
land from an Indian tribe and another from the white man's
government. Who won the case? He seemed outraged by that; but
if he were here, I'd ask him if he'd buy land from a Palestinian
today who said he owned a parcel of land in the occupied
territory. He said it was his by right and he could sell it.
>
> Take an example from America. Would you buy land from a
Navaho who told you his ancestors owned a piece of land and it
was his to sell when you could see that under the white man's
law, a white man owned it and he also had it up for sale? Who
would you choose to buy it from? I'd say no one would buy it
from the Navaho. The "rights" and "wrongs" of it are
irrelevant. You would buy it from the "white man" since his
government recognizes his ownership and his right to sell it and
has the power to enforce its decisions. You'd tell the
Navaho, "That's tough for you. Maybe you should own it; but if
I give you money for it, there is no guarantee I'll ever be able
to take ownership in fact."
>
> Any government that fails in its ability to enforce its
decisions on how it protects the rights of its citizens will
lose legitimacy and fade away. We can talk about the religious
angle to it; but the facts seem simple enough to me -- tribal
cultures around the world were unable to withstand invasions by
the white man. And worse, when the white man withdrew and
granted people the right to "self-determination," they
frequently fell back into their old ways of tribalism. It may
have been worse after the white man left than before they
arrived since the people they conquered learned about guns and
other deadlier forms of warfare than spears. What I see is that
the culture of the Americas was becoming more brutal over time
as the Incan and Aztec Empires grew. Both practiced human
sacrifice. The tribes they conquered were not prepared to
defend themselves.
--- End Quote ---
Your argument appears to be irrefutable, Kerry. I concede that
you are correct in this.
--- Quote ---
> Who takes the assertion seriously? People adopt whatever
position that is convenient at the moment. Nothing demonstrates
this more than the Irish conflict which started when the only
Englishman elected to be Pope decided the Irish were barbaric
pagans and needed to be converted. This is strange indeed since
one could say Ireland kept Christianity alive during much of the
Dark Ages; but it gets stranger. So the Pope said Ireland
belonged to the King of England.
>
> Where it gets stranger is after Henry VIII rebelled against
Rome. Do you think that the kings of England who threw off the
bonds of serving Rome now said that Ireland should be
independent? You know they didn't. They were still saying
Ireland belonged to them. . . because a Pope said so? To
complete the picture of strangeness, the Catholics in Ireland
took the opposite stance, saying Ireland should be independent
and no King of England should govern them. The Catholics were
rebelling against the authority of the Popes to say what king
owned what land. Both sides were wobbly when it comes to
taking a stand based on principles. They chose what was
convenient at the time. I don't see it as a uniquely white man
or Christian phenomenon.
>
> The increase in the militarization of Christianity was in
large part in reaction to the growing Muslim Empire. What can
easily be reviled as aggressive "crusades" and often is today
was really more alarm at the invasion of Christian territories.
Today some Muslims still say Spain belongs to them and the
Christians stole it. They use the word "crusade" in an attempt
to paint the Christians as warmongers. I don't think it was
that way.
>
> There was curious news from Puerto Rico involving the
vagueness about who owns what land. It played a role in the
recovery effort in Puerto Rico where some people were living on
land they considered their own and nobody challenged them; but
there was no land title and no one in the government knew who
owned what. The federal grants said however you had to show the
property was yours before you got the money.
>
> If one role of the government is to protect the right of
people to own property in peace, then I think the government has
to have a method of determining who truly owns what, maintaining
records of sales and inheritances. We could say if the informal
system of ownership worked for the people in Puerto Rico, no
one should tell them to change their way of doing things; but if
you take that approach, it means anyone stronger and better
armed than you could take your house and say it was his and not
yours, and who could prove otherwise?
>
--- End Quote ---
The problem, though, I think concerning the video, Kerry, is how
shall be place moral outrage for what has happened in history.
Since we've discovered that the word "discovery" was a word with
loaded meanings by the people who used that word, we cannot
accept history, as it is commonly narrated, at face value. All
of history concerning America comes up for reinterpretation and
moral reassessment. And this going to cause conflict . . .
--- Quote from: paralambano link ---
>
> Holland -
>
> I hear we're all apparently pink and stink on the inside :).
>
> You know, the enemies of all humans are sin, sickness and
death ultimately. We all have to work these things out
individually sooner or later. The later ones might be causing
some trouble.
>
>
> para . . . .
>
--- End Quote ---
Yes, para. I agree . . .
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1