The essential issue that gets overlooked all too frequently in this discussions is not simply Europeans' legal rationalizations, their rationalizations are just the outword evidence. Their history and current practices as well as those those non-Europeans who choose to emulate them, demonstrate over and over that they will rationalize anything in the name of conquest or more specifically economic and material gain, even at the expense of their own claimed Christian character. The real problem with Europeans' rationalizations is that as Christian cultures, they sacrificed the teachings of the Bible in order to get what they want. In other words they sold out their claimed Christian moral character, in order to justify conquest, theft, and murder. The question to these European Christians is "what scriptures provided justification for conquest?" In the old testament, God's command "to be fruitful and multiply" applied to believers of Christ of any color, it did not specify europeans or whites. Racially, all early Christians were Arabic, African, and the mixed races of Rome - not European whites. So upon what biblical basis did people like Vitoria justify his stance? The Christian God's admonition was to "preach the Gospel" not move in and take over, Not to enslave or murder. Christian missionaries were to be preachers, not conquerors. Conquest goes entirely against what the Bible commands Christians to do, so how can Christian conquerors claim Biblical righteousness for their actions? They CAN'T! Then and now, confining the discussion to Europeans rationalizations will never strike the real heart of the issue.
Saturday, December 24, 2011 - 20:22