Page 5 of 7

Re: How did a nice place like Mexico become a failed state?

Posted: Fri Nov 01, 2019 4:01 pm
by Sertorio
Doc wrote:
Fri Nov 01, 2019 2:44 pm

They still killed off 90% of the population in the first 100 years.
They didn't. Diseases brought by them did it...

Re: How did a nice place like Mexico become a failed state?

Posted: Fri Nov 01, 2019 10:58 pm
by neverfail
Milo wrote:
Fri Nov 01, 2019 3:40 pm
In my country and profession it is hard to avoid discussion about aboriginal rights.

There are two misconceptions, of the Canadian situation at least, that I would like to correct:

1 European settlers did very little to wipe out the aboriginals, diseases did the vast majority of that.
Germs

In the later context of the European colonization of the Americas, 95% of the indigenous populations are believed to have been killed off by diseases brought by the Europeans. Many were killed by infectious diseases such as smallpox and measles. Similar circumstances were observed in Australia and South Africa. Aboriginal Australians and the Khoikhoi population were decimated by smallpox, measles, influenza and other diseases.[7][8]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel
Very true of Australian Aborigines. In 1919 Spanish flu swept the world in the aftermath of the First World War and killed around 50 million people worldwide compared to only around 5 million slaughtered by the war. Despite the best efforts of our public health (and quarantine) officials it spread to this country too. Prospectors working in the remote Cape York peninsula of Queensland reported seeing scores of dead bodies of Aboriginals (still living the old hunter-gatherer way of life) washed up between the high and low tide marks on beaches along the peninsula coast. The blacks, having somehow contracted the illness and not knowing what it was tried to cool down the burning fever in their heads by immersing themselves in sea water. They then drowned when it turned out they were too weak to crawl back on to the beach.

That was only the most recent of the serial pandemics that decimated the Aboriginal population of Australia: beginning with the smallpox one first noted by British officers around the first settlement in 1789.
Milo wrote:
Fri Nov 01, 2019 3:40 pm
2 aboriginal title was recognized early and often
The Royal Proclamation occurred in 1763, and is considered to be the foundation of treaty-making in Canada. This proclamation established a line between the Appalachian Mountains from Nova Scotia to the southern region of the Province of Georgia, and prevented settlement beyond that specific area by white colonists.[3] The proclamation also established protocols that needed to be acknowledged by the governing authority in regards to purchasing land from First Nations Peoples in North America and later Canada.[4] The Royal Proclamation was created as a result of the assertion of British jurisdiction over First Nation territory. While the British laid claim over First Nation territory, uprisings from Pontiac, the Three Fire Confederacy, and other First Nations Peoples resulted in a period of violence between the two peoples as the British attempted to maintain their claim and the Indigenous peoples fought to dislodge British troops from their land. As a result of these uprisings, the intention of the Royal Proclamation was to prevent future disputes.[5] The Royal Proclamation stated that the only authoritative government that was able to purchase land from First Nations People was the British Crown. One of the stipulations of this agreement was that First Nations People were to be informed and attend the public assembly regarding the purchase of lands.[6]

When the British North America Act, 1867 was enacted, a division of power was established between the Dominion Government and its provinces that separated First Nation Peoples and settlers. The federal government retained responsibility for providing health care, education, property rights and creating other laws that would affect the First Nations people.[7][8] Following the establishment of the British North America Acts in 1867, the Dominion Government of Canada replaced the British Crown as the leading authority, and gained control of 19th century First Nations land transfers.[9]

Both the Royal Proclamation and the British North America Acts impacted the procedures of governmental and First Nations People negotiations. They set the stage for future negotiations that would occur, including the numbered treaties that would begin in 1871 with Treaty 1.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numbered_Treaties
Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 provides constitutional protection to the indigenous and treaty rights of indigenous peoples in Canada. The section, while within the Constitution of Canada, falls outside the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The section does not define the term "aboriginal rights" or provide a closed list; some examples of the rights that section 35 has been found to protect are fishing, logging, hunting, the right to land (cf. aboriginal title) and the right to enforcement of treaties. There remains a debate over whether the right to indigenous self-government is included within section 35. As of 2006 the Supreme Court of Canada has made no ruling on the matter. However, since 1995 the Government of Canada has had a policy recognizing the inherent right of self-government under section 35.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_3 ... _Act,_1982
Very different here in Australia. Out here the position of the British government was that Australia was terra nullus. They defined the native Australians as being too primitive to have even the slightest conception of land ownership. Anybody who wonders why Australia has lagged so far behind kindred countries overseas in recognizing indigenous land rights need only take that long lived terra nullus doctrine into account.

Re: How did a nice place like Mexico become a failed state?

Posted: Sat Nov 02, 2019 3:32 am
by Sertorio
In all colonial countries governements were not strong enough, or willing enough, to impose on settlers any form of recognition of rights of natives. Bartolomé de las Casas tried in Spain, Antonio Vieira (a Jesuit) tried in Brazil/Portugal, and both failed because of opposition by settlers. Probably the same happened in Canada and Australia/New Zealand. But sometimes one suspects that governments didn't truly try hard enough. Whether those native rights can still be protected in any meaningful way, is very much the question. Too much was lost and you cannot turn the clock back.

Re: How did a nice place like Mexico become a failed state?

Posted: Sat Nov 02, 2019 7:57 am
by cassowary
neverfail wrote:
Thu Oct 31, 2019 1:23 pm
Indeed, as these protestant colonizers had been influenced by the Calvinist doctrines of being God's elect people by virtue of pre-destination they were inclined to damn the native Americans as irredeemable heathens.
Protestants are a touch haughty as a result of Calvin's ideas, which was unfortunate for the Amerindians and Africans they encountered in the 18th and 19th centuries.

This also affected Protestant attitude towards poverty. Success is seen as a result of God's blessings. God blesses those who please Him by obeying His Word. Thus poverty must be because of sin. This is probably where the "Sunday best" clothes came from.

People dressed up well for their Sunday service lest they were thought of as big time sinners. I don't think all poor people became poor as a result of sin. Nor does that mean all rich people are virtuous. With that caveat, I believe that there is a connection between sin and poverty.

For example, sloth is a sin. Obviously, a lazy man is unlikely to become wealthy. It takes hard work.
Proverbs 6:10 & 11

A little extra sleep, a little more slumber,

then poverty will pounce on you like a bandit;
Drunkenness (and by modern extension drug addiction) is also a sin. It will ruin your life.

On frugality and extravagance :
Proverbs 21:17

He that loveth pleasure shall be a poor man: he that loveth wine and oil shall not be rich.
On lust:
Proverbs 29:3

A man who loves wisdom makes his father glad, But he who keeps company with harlots wastes his wealth.
Obviously, a man who spends foolishly on pleasures will not be able to save. Those who can save will invest and grow wealthy. To this day, the Swiss have a high savings rate. John Calvin operated in Geneva. It looks like his ideas still live on.

So you can see how the practice of dressing well for Sunday Service got started. They did not want people to think that they are poor for it brings suspicions of sin. Perhaps they were slothful or squandered their money on wine and harlots.

Thus Calvin's ideas led Protestants to look inside themselves for solutions to their problems. If they are poor, perhaps there is something wrong with themselves. It motivates self improvement. Conversely, if people became rich, it might be because they have virtues to be admired and imitated. So they are admired instead of envied. Anyway, envy is a sin too.

Let's contrast this to Socialist dogma. Instead of blaming oneself, Socialists blame others for poverty. For them, it must be because of an oppressive class of people - the capitalist. They don't see them as possessing virtues to be emulated but oppressors to be brought down. By looking for external causes, the urge for self improvement declines. It's not my fault. It is the fault of an unjust society. Kind of like the Muslims who keep blaming the Jews for their failures.

Such attitudes could explain the relative success of the Protestant North Europe and North America as compared to Catholic South Europe and Latin America. Protestantism facilitated capitalism in the North and so these countries prospered.

I think I have written enough. Let me leave you with the words of Benjamin Franklin who obviously thought that individual qualities determine who becomes rich or poor and thus it is unwise for the public to provide for the poor:
“I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”

Re: How did a nice place like Mexico become a failed state?

Posted: Sat Nov 02, 2019 3:48 pm
by neverfail
cassowary wrote:
Sat Nov 02, 2019 7:57 am


Obviously, a man who spends foolishly on pleasures will not be able to save. Those who can save will invest and grow wealthy. To this day, the Swiss have a high savings rate. John Calvin operated in Geneva. It looks like his ideas still live on.

So you can see how the practice of dressing well for Sunday Service got started. They did not want people to think that they are poor for it brings suspicions of sin. Perhaps they were slothful or squandered their money on wine and harlots.
Cass, I consider your post and the case it presents to be a good one. However while I can see some merit in Calvin's case (as promoted by you) I still must beg to differ.

That particular statement sums up what I would describe as phenomena for which Englishmen in particular have long been noted: putting on airs and graces to bolster ones importance - of misrepresenting oneself to the world by way of contrived appearances - the ploy of crooks and humbugs. If you cannot be one of God's elect then it is important to appear to be lest others think badly of you.

"It brings suspicion of sin" you correctly say? I am moved to recall here Christ's parable of the good Samaritan - when two very upright and well regarded Jews; a priest and a levite no less, Ignored the plight of a traveler who had been beaten senseless by bandits and robbed while a Samaritan, a despised heretic, stopped and took care of the unfortunate. In other words, the heretic Samaritan behaved in a Godly fashion while the upright Jews, who feared being defiled by contact with an individual who they believed must be a sinner rather than merely unfortunate, did not deign to stop and help.

Christ's parable would have caused a sense of outrage among his Jewish listeners as it was likely intended to do because according to Jewish conventional wisdom of his day no heretic Samaritan could possibly be holy. Christ with that parable had exposed the hypocrisy of the conventional Judism of his day and would not have been thanked for doing so.

The Jewish priest and levite were arguably both guilty of a sin of pride: being "up themselves" with a sense of holy righteousness to the point where both were moved to ignore the plight of another child of God.

There are few, if any, real Calvinists left in Australia now but when I was a boy there were, mainly members of the Presbyterian Church. One behavioral trait I noticed in them was an amazing propensity to prejudge others - to assume the worst of other men especially those who were not of their own persuasion. They had a way of making you feel so guilty. I believe that this special sin of pride is a long-lived temptation shared by Calvinists down through the centuries. A lot like the righteousness of "upright" Jews in days of yore.

Sin, I hope you can see now, is much more subtle and multi-dimensional than you may have previously imagined.

..........................................................................................................................

Cass. I consider the protestant reformation historically to have been an upheaval that my Church brought down upon itself. With a corrupted clergy the Church of pre-reformation times was failing in earthly mission. The Vatican would never trumpet this news from the rooftops but I can see from changes within the Church that have taken place during my lifetime that the church fathers have now drawn the same conclusion.

Re: How did a nice place like Mexico become a failed state?

Posted: Sat Nov 02, 2019 4:18 pm
by Sertorio
The biggest sin is for people to think that they were instructed by God - if He exists - to be God's mouthpieces on Earth, to be the interpreters of God's will or intentions... Would any of you believe that an all-powerful God would need any of us to convey His message? The fact is that the clergy - any clergy - do not convey God's word, they convey their own words, meant to further their own power and interests... And we are stupid enough to believe them...

Re: How did a nice place like Mexico become a failed state?

Posted: Sun Nov 03, 2019 7:41 pm
by cassowary
neverfail wrote:
Sat Nov 02, 2019 3:48 pm
cassowary wrote:
Sat Nov 02, 2019 7:57 am


Obviously, a man who spends foolishly on pleasures will not be able to save. Those who can save will invest and grow wealthy. To this day, the Swiss have a high savings rate. John Calvin operated in Geneva. It looks like his ideas still live on.

So you can see how the practice of dressing well for Sunday Service got started. They did not want people to think that they are poor for it brings suspicions of sin. Perhaps they were slothful or squandered their money on wine and harlots.
Cass, I consider your post and the case it presents to be a good one. However while I can see some merit in Calvin's case (as promoted by you) I still must beg to differ.

That particular statement sums up what I would describe as phenomena for which Englishmen in particular have long been noted: putting on airs and graces to bolster ones importance - of misrepresenting oneself to the world by way of contrived appearances - the ploy of crooks and humbugs. If you cannot be one of God's elect then it is important to appear to be lest others think badly of you.

"It brings suspicion of sin" you correctly say? I am moved to recall here Christ's parable of the good Samaritan - when two very upright and well regarded Jews; a priest and a levite no less, Ignored the plight of a traveler who had been beaten senseless by bandits and robbed while a Samaritan, a despised heretic, stopped and took care of the unfortunate. In other words, the heretic Samaritan behaved in a Godly fashion while the upright Jews, who feared being defiled by contact with an individual who they believed must be a sinner rather than merely unfortunate, did not deign to stop and help.

Christ's parable would have caused a sense of outrage among his Jewish listeners as it was likely intended to do because according to Jewish conventional wisdom of his day no heretic Samaritan could possibly be holy. Christ with that parable had exposed the hypocrisy of the conventional Judism of his day and would not have been thanked for doing so.

The Jewish priest and levite were arguably both guilty of a sin of pride: being "up themselves" with a sense of holy righteousness to the point where both were moved to ignore the plight of another child of God.

There are few, if any, real Calvinists left in Australia now but when I was a boy there were, mainly members of the Presbyterian Church. One behavioral trait I noticed in them was an amazing propensity to prejudge others - to assume the worst of other men especially those who were not of their own persuasion. They had a way of making you feel so guilty. I believe that this special sin of pride is a long-lived temptation shared by Calvinists down through the centuries. A lot like the righteousness of "upright" Jews in days of yore.

Sin, I hope you can see now, is much more subtle and multi-dimensional than you may have previously imagined.

..........................................................................................................................

Cass. I consider the protestant reformation historically to have been an upheaval that my Church brought down upon itself. With a corrupted clergy the Church of pre-reformation times was failing in earthly mission. The Vatican would never trumpet this news from the rooftops but I can see from changes within the Church that have taken place during my lifetime that the church fathers have now drawn the same conclusion.
You are absolutely right, Neverfail. I can't find anything to disagree with.

The English do put on airs. This may have evolved from their Anglican heritage, a desire to appear "respectable" less poverty may be misconstrued as sinfulness. So they pretend to be something they are not by dressing well and acting in a manner to suggest they belong to the upper classes.

Calvin influenced a wide swath of Protestant churches. So this judgementalism you spoke of is not confined to Presbyterians. There is good and bad in this. As you said, it sometimes lead to the sin of pride and hypocrisy. But it can also lead to self improvement. As human beings, we desire the approval and esteem of our peers. This idea that sin can lead to ruin and poverty has important economic consequences. It lead to the flourishing and success of capitalism.

All this is fading in modern times, especially in the west, which is unfortunate. This may be why Socialism is surging in the US as can be seen by the success of Warren and Sanders. To their supporters, their lack of success is not due to their own fault (let alone talk about sin) but the fault of an unjust society. That's pure Socialist ideology.

Re: How did a nice place like Mexico become a failed state?

Posted: Sun Nov 03, 2019 10:23 pm
by neverfail
I warmly welcome your post (below) Cass.
cassowary wrote:
Sun Nov 03, 2019 7:41 pm
You are absolutely right, Neverfail. I can't find anything to disagree with.

The English do put on airs. This may have evolved from their Anglican heritage, a desire to appear "respectable" less poverty may be misconstrued as sinfulness. So they pretend to be something they are not by dressing well and acting in a manner to suggest they belong to the upper classes.

Calvin influenced a wide swath of Protestant churches. So this judgementalism you spoke of is not confined to Presbyterians. There is good and bad in this. As you said, it sometimes lead to the sin of pride and hypocrisy. But it can also lead to self improvement. As human beings, we desire the approval and esteem of our peers. This idea that sin can lead to ruin and poverty has important economic consequences. It lead to the flourishing and success of capitalism.
This is not a tit-for-tat compliment Cass but I likewise agree with your above shared insight also.

As I see it the Catholic Church does not impede economic and other forms of development but unlike the Calvinist sects is does not supply a set of moral obligations that facilitate it either. So you have a small number of rich (globally high income) countries of Catholic heritage but a much larger number of poor (some of them very poor) ones too. I will abstain from further comment here as my Church attracts large amounts of criticism from elsewhere - including quite a lot of ill informed and unjust criticism and I do not want to add to it here.
cassowary wrote:
Sat Nov 02, 2019 7:57 am
All this is fading in modern times, especially in the west, which is unfortunate. This may be why Socialism is surging in the US as can be seen by the success of Warren and Sanders. To their supporters, their lack of success is not due to their own fault (let alone talk about sin) but the fault of an unjust society. That's pure Socialist ideology.
Yes, there has been a mass desertion of Christianity in the West which in its absence leads to an undue focus on worldly ambition. The "energetic" parts of Christ's following now seem to be in the "missionary" lands of Asia and Africa. Those who lose touch with the concept of the afterlife and with God's graces naturally look for other gods to bow down to and worship. Too often Materialist gods that resemble cargo cult deities. Having said that I would still suggest that there are plenty of social injustices in the world that blight lives inflicted on people by forces beyond their control that require a collective remedy. Please do not presume that all movements to mitigate and remedy injustice necessarily constitute "socialism".

Re: How did a nice place like Mexico become a failed state?

Posted: Mon Nov 04, 2019 3:22 am
by Sertorio
neverfail wrote:
Sun Nov 03, 2019 10:23 pm

Yes, there has been a mass desertion of Christianity in the West which in its absence leads to an undue focus on worldly ambition.
I don't see it that way. I see an increasing number of people concerned with ethical questions, and willing to sacrifice their comfort to further those concerns. Environmental questions and animal rights are two examples. But also the rights of minorities. The problem, for people like you, is that most of those concerned people do no look to religion or to God to solve those problems, even though Pope Francis has been very vocal about them, which has led to many people criticizing him. Religion is becoming increasingly irrelevant because an increasing number of people see religions as fantasies, not because people are becoming more materialistic. In fact, many very materialistic people consider themselves as being very religious...

Re: How did a nice place like Mexico become a failed state?

Posted: Mon Nov 04, 2019 6:02 am
by cassowary
neverfail wrote:
Sun Nov 03, 2019 10:23 pm
I warmly welcome your post (below) Cass.
.
.
.
Having said that I would still suggest that there are plenty of social injustices in the world that blight lives inflicted on people by forces beyond their control that require a collective remedy. Please do not presume that all movements to mitigate and remedy injustice necessarily constitute "socialism".
Yes. The truth lies between "it's all my fault" to "its all the fault of a unjust society."