- This topic has 68 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by .
-
Posts
-
Governments don’t scale to just any size you dream up.
Actually, I think the country should be returned to the Indians. Who gave the Americans the right to steal it from them? And why do we celebrate the fact that they stole it? It doesn’t sound very nice to me.
Manhattan was bought from the Indians fair and square. For all of $24 worth of beads it was the bargain of the century, I tell you.
Wasn’t there some misunderstanding between the Indians and the Americans (or whatever they were called at the time) regarding what they meant by selling?
I remember reading somewhere that the people who made the $24 sale didn’t own the land, and it later had to be bought from the actual owners.
#CrookedIndians
Actually, I think it was the Americans who were crooked.
The Dutch bought Manhattan fair and square for $24 (or to be more precise, for 60 Dutch guilders – which with inflation would today be the equivalent of about $16,000.)
so does that mean we should be “dan l’kaf zchus”? I still think the Americans were very cruel to the Indians. When I reread Little House on the Prairie as an adult, I was very bothered by that.
lilmod ulelamaid,
Though all dispossessions are cruel
It’s the first Rashi in Chumash
I still think the Americans were very cruel to the Indians.
It wasn’t one-sided.
It is interesting to note that Declaration of Independence contains the following:
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
American history tries to make it sound like it was one-sided the other way – the Indians were all bad and the Americans were all-good.
Same with the British. All the books make it sound like the Revolutionists were heroes. Hello, they were murderers.
“American history tries to make it sound like it was one-sided the other way – the Indians were all bad and the Americans were all-good.”
When you were a kid that was true. Not anymore. The Politically Correct storm troopers took over and school texts nowadays in American public schools tell you the white European guys were evil and victimized the poor righteous wholesome Indians.
“Same with the British. All the books make it sound like the Revolutionists were heroes. Hello, they were murderers.”
What are you saying about the British? And how were the Revolutionists murderers? The Torah recognizes the legitimate right of any nation to capture land from other nations via war.
Didn’t the Americans start the war? So doesn’t that mean that the British were just defending themselves? (disclaimer: I don’t know much about history).
The Torah permits starting a war in order to capture land from another nation.
Lilmod, you are correct. As they did not have the concept of private ownership of land but only the usufruct the Indians thought that they were ripping off the Europeans by selling land that was not theirs. In any case, I recall a machloket in the Gemara regarding whether or not a gentile king may take another’s land but all agree that if he does he acquires it. This was Yiftach’s rebuttal to the King of Ammon.
Aren’t there certain condition? Even when we conquered EY, didn’t we have to give the goyim the option of keeping 7 Mitzvos bnei Noach and living peacfully with us?
I don’t think that we are allowed to just go decide to make war with another country.
Also, that is kind of like saying that it was okay for the Nazis to kill the Jews because we have a Mitzvah to kill Amelek.
??? ???, ??? ????? ?? ????? ??? ??’??? ????
Avi – so it sounds like you are agreeing with Joseph that the Americans were right.
The Torah permits nations to go to war to capture land from other nations for the purpose of obtaining the natural resources of the captured lands for the benefit of the victorious nation’s inhabitants.
Of course the people acquired in the captured lands from the defeated nations must be treated humanely upon the cessation of hostilities.
Why would it be okay to murder people just so that you can steal from them? Any where does it say in the Torah that goyim are allowed to do this? For that matter, where does it say that we are allowed to?
did you get my msg?
They had a home; I thought they just didn’t want to have pay taxes to the British.
Sorry, RY, were you talking about the Indians or the British?
“The Torah permits starting a war in order to capture land from another nation.”
I don’t think this holds true for all nations. Hashem promised EY to the Jews. He didn’t promise America to the Europeans.
That sounds like you’re assuming they meant only that the Torah
permits starting a war to capture Eretz Yisrael from another nation.
Lilmod, the libertarians notwithstanding, it is clear that states may do what individual may not do. A state may imprison or even execute people. Individuals may not. In any case, the discussion is to whom America belongs at least b’diavad.
We are allowed to start a war in order to widen EY. However, such a war needs the approval of a navi and the Sanhedrin.
The Torah recognizes the right of gentile nations to go to war with other gentile nations to expand their territory.
Lu,. If you are ignorant about history, why are commenting?
What msg?
Joseph, could you point me to where the Torah allows this?
There was cruelty and bloodshed going around on all sides during the colonization and establishment of the USA. So much of the warfare and bloodshed has long since been forgotten (War of 1812 anyone?). This is what fascinated me way back in the day studying it:
I felt I could see the cogs and wheels and gears interlocking and shifting like the intricate workings of a complicated machine, until a country where freedom of religion is the law was ready and waiting when we were thrown out of the last station in our Galus travels.
YY, see the discussion of ????? ????? in Gittin 38a.
Joseph, I guess you missed it. The one in Loshon Hakodesh. Someone else helped out meanwhile, but an additional vote could still be useful. This situation is really stressing me out and making me very nervous.
lesschumras – I am commenting based on the knowledge that I have with the qualification that I may be missing info, so if anyone has information that changes the situation, I would be happy to hear.
I haven’t noticed that lack of knowledge about a topic stops others from commenting on things – at least I am being honest enough to acknowledge it.
“The Torah recognizes the right of gentile nations to go to war with other gentile nations to expand their territory.”
Where does the Torah talk about this?
“Lilmod, the libertarians notwithstanding, it is clear that states may do what individual may not do. A state may imprison or even execute people.”
Avi, who says? I know that is what the world thinks, but who cares what the world thinks? Where does one see that the Torah allows such a thing?
Imprisoning and executing people are different. They are only allowed to do that if said people are criminals for the purpose of preventing crime. The Torah specifically says they have a chiyuv to do that.
The equivalent example would be going to war to fight terrorism or to defend oneself or to defend another country who is being unfairly attacked. I have no problem with any of that. I am talking about going to war in order to steal someone else’s land.
Lilmod,
1. I wrote that it is a machloket. I do not remember where but see Shoftim ch. 11 that Sichon acquired part of Ammon by conquest and that this acquisition gave him legal ownership. Thus, Israel was not violating the commandment not to take land from Ammon when it took this area.
2. My point is that states have rights that individuals do not have. An individual may not imprison someone to prevent crime and certainly may not kill someone for that purpose.
“The Torah recognizes the right of gentile nations to go to war with other gentile nations to expand their territory.
Where does the Torah talk about this? “
End of Parshas chukkas
Our human species wiped out the neanderthals,Denisovans,etc.
All humanity murdered,displaced,thieved,raped, those who were prior,yes??
The reference to the first Rashi was possibly misunderstood?
Torah is meant for
Universal Blueprint
(even if written parochially)
The “Natives” gained their territory by wiping out the tribes that were there before.
So is the US better?
It is about what they represent
{The world tacitly acknowledges it, kicking and whining perhaps,even if left unstated]
Lord Jakubowitz a”h stated there were four philosophy based revolutions in
in the past several centuries
1.The British Puritan Civil War 1640s and 1650s
[and a sort of continuation]
2.The american
3. The french
[and a sort of continuation]
4.The russian
The first two were based on the Bible ,and though there was bloodshed,brought greater human dignity and human progress .
The latter two were based on other sources and and have brought destruction and horror…….
It seems my reference to the
What determines the difference between mass murder and/or collateral damage?
Humanity are always in a state of violent or nonviolent confrontation
It ought to depend on what you’re/they’re fighting for
If it’s for something Higher
and
humanity’s rendezvous with
Destiny
wow, you are a virtual tzaddik!
Mass murder would be the intentional killing of civilians. If you’re bombing factories , the unintended death of civilians would collateral damage
The Torah says that conquest by other nations is effective, not that it’s allowed. It’s similar to how a thief can make a kinyan on what he steals in some circumstances. That doesn’t mean he’s allowed to steal.
yehudayona,
There are many places in Nach where it declares the goyish conqueror as a messenger of, and sanctioned by, Shamayim
e.g.Koresh of Bavel
being a messenger of Shamayim is not the same as being sanctioned by Shamayim. It is possible to be both, but being a messenger is not proof of sanction. I am not familiar with the story in Nach. Is it specified that it was davka sanctioned by Hashem, or just that he was a messenger?
Time, who says that Homo Sapiens wiped out the Neanderthals and Denisons? Scientists postulate that they were wiped out by climate change, some other catastrophe or were assimilated into humans (in fact, Neanderthal DNA has been found in modern people).
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.