Am I a racist ?

**PanzerJaeger** · 09-07-2005, 06:23

Well I get the impression that you're arguing htat it isn't such a bad thing.

What about dominant people then? If I can beat you around can I take your land? Is armed robbery at a micro level immoral, but wholesale moral?

I quite frankly like my neighbours property - can I take it by force because I am more powerful than them?

Just as in economics, macro and micro are two different things. In the case of micro, both you and your neighbor are living under the same government, whereas there is no governing authority and no common laws recognized between two cultures as different as those found in the time we are talking about. Thats a major difference. In the abscense of man-made laws, natural laws come into play.

**Papewaio** · 09-07-2005, 06:25

However there was a treaty signed so surely that puts them under the same law...

**Roark** · 09-07-2005, 06:37

Heh...

Let's examine some well-known historical massacres, and we can try to figure out if they were "legal" or not...

**Productivity** · 09-07-2005, 06:44

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

Just as in economics, macro and micro are two different things. In the case of micro, both you and your neighbor are living under the same government, whereas there is no governing authority and no common laws recognized between two cultures as different as those found in the time we are talking about. Thats a major difference. In the abscense of man-made laws, natural laws come into play.

I am fully aware that macro and micro are different things, however you will find that most macro economic theory is derived at least in part from microeconomic theory. In fact, I have a macroeconomics test in two days, and the page I am open at now has a diagram on it, showing utility curves! Utility curves! One of the most microeconomic tools there is. They look at individual conusmers - yet here they are in a high level macroeconomics book.

So what does this say to me? It says to me that you are just chucking economics in for the sake of it. So do laws function at a macro level? Does a society have an obligation to follow it's own rules at a macro level or not? What are natural laws? Are natural laws simply might is right?

**PanzerJaeger** · 09-07-2005, 07:44

So do laws function at a macro level? Does a society have an obligation to follow it's own rules at a macro level or not?

That’s subjective and up to you to decide on your own based on your own moral code.

I am trying to point out to you that cultural progression has never and will never respect the boundaries of a substandard culture for any length of time. It is not a matter of whether this is good or bad, as it is simply a natural occurrence.

And example..

A Nike factory is built in Africa. Are the corporate execs making a conscious decision to ruin the native culture of the area, or are they thinking about the best way to run their company? Now the Africans start to wear Nike clothes they are given at the factory instead of the traditional dress and now they are forced to work in the factory to keep up economic status with all the others. In that tiny microcosm, a culture was lost. There was no malice toward the Africans by the Nike corporation, they simply didn’t have a society strong enough to resist the benefits of working at the factory and the negatives of not working at the factory. Its simple progression.

This is what happened on a much larger scale all around the world. Native cultures simply were not able to compete with that of Europe. Was it wrong to break treaties and such, of course, but im talking about the much larger culture wars that were fought all over the world, and have been since the mankind has existed. The broken treaties and even the genocides were simply results of two cultures competing.

In an atmosphere where cultures have been allowed to grow so separately, the results when they meet are often violent. Today, in a much more globalized world, cultural progression is much more subtle, but very much the same.

It really does not matter if specific treaties, laws, or morals were respected or ignored; the native cultures and way of life could not compete and ceased to exist. This is a natural occurrence.

That is why I am against all of this talk of reparations and the guilt trip modern day "natives" try and push. They are essentially advocating the end of cultural progression, which has been nothing but a positive for the human race as a whole. To bring economics into it again, the world operates on a form of "cultural capitalism". Those cultures which are strong relative to the others survive and grow while those that cannot compete on any measure of standards fail. There is no reason to compensate the relatives of a failed people.

I don’t know about the natives around your part of the world, but over here they never even came up with the wheel. They were destined for the cultural trash heap. I say - get over it. Its been centuries..

**Roark** · 09-07-2005, 08:00

What are your thoughts on atrocities that occurred in the 20th century, PJ? Mass alcoholism, disease, kidnapping, rape and mass poverty as a result of European interaction etc...

I mention these things because these are the specifics of the situation with the Australian Aborigine, and the consequences are widespread to this day.

I agree with you that, at some point in history, reparation would become ridiculous (imagine the mess in Europe, haha...), but at what point would you draw the line?