Conquest of America, Australia, NZ, Great Nations, right work?

[GoldenKingGaze]

The great lands of the Americas, named after Saint Emeric, Australia and NZ were conquested and colonized. Native people sometimes were able to accept the faith and civil ways, sometimes were not given a good opportunity... sometimes the tribes were genocided, or defeated and the women and children were forced into slavery.

Built on the land and from the immigration are great nations like the USA, with amazing medicine and quality of life, rights and freedoms, entertainment... But from millions of Native Americans there are now only about three hundred thousand, and the population is about three hundred and twenty million.

Australia when discovered by captain Cook, despite meeting such as Bennelong, was declared to be an uninhabited land.

The constitutions, civilizations, cities and rural works and great!
But does the end justify the means?

If you think yes, is that Christian?
If you think no, and were presented with another opportunity like the old colonists, would you take it?
Do you think God remembered the sins of the colonists, to the third and fourth generations, or were they right by God, acting in love for God?

Best regards.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

None of the above.

First, determine WHY colonization took place at all.

Second, determine exactly what part Christianity played in all this.

 

[Radagast]

Australia when discovered by captain Cook, despite meeting such as Bennelong, was declared to be an uninhabited land.

Well, no, it wasn't, actually.

In fact, the inhabitants of the colony were declared to be subjects of the British Crown, just as with other British colonies. Of course, relationships between convicts and indigenous people didn't stay all that friendly for very long.

In the case of New Zealand, the situation was quite different. A number of Māori chiefs signed a Declaration of the Independence in 1835, and in 1839, the Treaty of Waitangi ceded sovereignty of New Zealand to the British Crown (respecting all existing Māori land ownership) in exchange for the British controlling disorder. While the Māori were not always treated fairly in the years that followed, in no way can this be described as "conquest."

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

Yes you are right, I only heard from a Maori first hand of hardships, and recalled the following inaccurately in my OP:
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1. Terra nullius [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]British colonisation policies and subsequent land laws were framed in the belief that the colony was being acquired by occupation (or settlement) of a terra nullius (land without owners).
Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation
[/SIZE][/FONT]

 

[Radagast]

I must admit that I was wrong: the original royal instructions don't actually name the indigenous Australians as British subjects:

"You are to endeavour by every possible means to open an Intercourse with the Natives and to conciliate their affections, enjoining all Our Subjects to live in amity and kindness with them. And if any of Our Subjects shall wantonly destroy them, or give them any unnecessary Interruption in the exercise of their several occupations, it is our Will and Pleasure that you do cause such offenders to be brought to punishment according to the degree of the Offence. You will endeavour to procure an account of the Numbers inhabiting the Neighbourhood of the intended settlement and report your opinion to one of our Secretaries of State in what manner Our Intercourse with these people may be turned to the advantage of this country."

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1. Terra nullius [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]British colonisation policies and subsequent land laws were framed in the belief that the colony was being acquired by occupation (or settlement) of a terra nullius (land without owners).
Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation
[/SIZE][/FONT]

The "terra nullius" concept has been used a very great deal in recent Australian debate. However, the concept does not seem to have been used in any of the original documents and pronouncements. The royal instructions above presuppose that the original colony site was genuinely uninhabited, with indigenous Australians living in the "Neighbourhood" (the original colony site was, of course, a poor place to live).

Rather "terra nullius" seems to have been an attempt to retrospectively describe British behaviour in much of Australia. In the colony of Melbourne, land was acquired by John Batman through a rather controversial treaty with the Wurundjeri elders, but it is likely that (even more than in the case of New Zealand) both sides totally misunderstood the other's concept of land.

In any case, Batman's treaty was voided by an 1835 pronouncement by Governor Richard Bourke, which asserted that all the land belonged to the Crown, but gave no legal justification or mechanism for Crown ownership.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Here in the US, the frontier land-grabs and the push to settle and take all land to the Pacific Ocean can only be described as a brutal, near-genocidal blood bath.

And while I am certainly comfortable and happy to live in one of those western territories within the United States--I don't believe I should be ever comfortable with the means for how it was accomplished or ever let myself think that the ends in any way whatsoever have justified the means.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[WisdomTree]

For a moment, I thought this was a games forum.

 

[Radagast]

Here in the US, the frontier land-grabs and the push to settle and take all land to the Pacific Ocean can only be described as a brutal, near-genocidal blood bath.

The US situation is also a little unusual in that there were formal treaties with the Indians, which were then not adhered to by the government. It's a very sad story indeed.

 

[Radagast]

In my view, this is a very silly poll, and I have not voted, because the histories of (say) New Zealand and the USA are so utterly different that it's simply dishonest to treat them as equivalent.

One might describe parts of US history as "conquest," but one could not describe the story of New Zealand that way.

 

[NannaNae]

I have a very different veiw of it then any of your points.. but I can sum it up best as this verse......and he is not a liar !

Mar 10:29
And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left (lost?)house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's,

Mar 10:30
But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.

Mar 10:31
But many that are first shall be last; and the last first.

He has always had plans , and no I won't go into it. and his plans are always good!!! hard but Good.. now it is true everytime men are bad, murdering hellllllllllllllllll is between their ears...
but in the end He will work even that kind of aweful for his children good, maybe just to spite hell and all who belong to it...

 

[Armoured]

None of the above, it is wrong to judge our ancestors by the morals and philosophies of the modern day.

 

[NannaNae]

None of the above, it is wrong to judge our ancestors by the morals and philosophies of the modern day.

well God will disagree with you . He will judge the nations for a good reason.
someday everyone will have to fessup even the
victims aren't innocent either. well most weren't , there won't be any candy coating anything! !

 

[Armoured]

well God will disagree with you . He will judge the nations for a good reason.
someday everyone will have to fessup even the
victims aren't innocent either. well most weren't , there won't be any candy coating anything! !

*eyeroll* my point was over there somewhere.

 

[NannaNae]

one of my favorites..

Psa 82:1
A psalm of Asaph. God presides in the great assembly; he renders judgment among the “gods”:

Psa 82:2
“How long will youfn defend the unjust and show partiality to the wicked?fn

Psa 82:3
Defend the weak and the fatherless; uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed.

Psa 82:4
Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.

Psa 82:5
“The ‘gods’ know nothing, they understand nothing. They walk about in darkness; all the foundations of the earth are shaken.

Psa 82:6
“I said, ‘You are “gods”; you are all sons of the Most High.’

Psa 82:7
But you will die like mere mortals; you will fall like every other ruler.”

Psa 82:8
Rise up, O God, judge the earth, for all the nations are your inheritance.


someday we will all cast our crowns.. because it is all his and always has been.

we were just borrowing it to see what we are all made of.

 

[football5680]

Colonization had very little to do with Christianity. The Colonists obviously brought their religion and it was important to them but for the majority their motivation for coming was not based on the fact that they were Christians. With anything like this the people will be judged on an individual basis and their motivation will be taken into account.

 

[Skybringr]

The great lands of the Americas, named after Saint Emeric, Australia and NZ were conquested and colonized. Native people sometimes were able to accept the faith and civil ways, sometimes were not given a good opportunity... sometimes the tribes were genocided, or defeated and the women and children were forced into slavery.

Built on the land and from the immigration are great nations like the USA, with amazing medicine and quality of life, rights and freedoms, entertainment... But from millions of Native Americans there are now only about three hundred thousand, and the population is about three hundred and twenty million.

Australia when discovered by captain Cook, despite meeting such as Bennelong, was declared to be an uninhabited land.

The constitutions, civilizations, cities and rural works and great!
But does the end justify the means?

If you think yes, is that Christian?
If you think no, and were presented with another opportunity like the old colonists, would you take it?
Do you think God remembered the sins of the colonists, to the third and fourth generations, or were they right by God, acting in love for God?

Best regards.

Meh, their rights and wrongs balance themselves out. Therefore, 'meh' is the only thing that comes to mind in this regard.

 

[Skybringr]

Colonization had very little to do with Christianity. The Colonists obviously brought their religion and it was important to them but for the majority their motivation for coming was not based on the fact that they were Christians. With anything like this the people will be judged on an individual basis and their motivation will be taken into account.

Religion has to do with everything. One's worldview is what drives one to do any and everything they act on. The great sages of our religion speak of this, no?

 

[NannaNae]

Then just like now , the front line is the christians and the poor who are trying to pick up the pieces of a decadent and lawless and the "deserving classes " in power and all forms of needy and greedy 's with their hands out . it is and has always been too cheap and low and ignorant to blame the front line
"do gooders" for what the deserving do in politics and religion, when the deserving take what they want one way or the other.
but to blame the hands trying to feed you and protect you , when they knew the deserving would wipe you from the earth without a thought. . it is liberal and lawless.. to blame the front line who love and the poor who tried to help for the policies of the powerful, that is just ignorant . but ignorance has never stopped liberals from lying to accomplish their goals to debase and take even more. because the deserving have a need for slaves to serve them.

What powers in high places do isn't "Christian " any more than sitting in on a sweat makes you an indian, or sitting in a garage makes you a car.
Men/ mankind deceive themselves to be able to do what they want and not feel guilty about it. They will and do use anything and everything to accomplish that single goal , and rich and poor , native and non..and the religious of every bent , they all do that . It is our sin nature !

it is just it old game, pass the blame (" the woman made me do it" has been going down from day one )but it just has some new names.

 

[NannaNae]

if we look back in time hell always wants the children..
from Babylon, Pharoah, Harod, Aztec, and others..

King of of Sodom wanted the people and mostly the children, they always have.

Our own Meggaitch wrote a book Revealing the Deservings real intentions..
about how it takes a village to raise your children..
it seems the Village idiots and mostly the village perverts have always wanted to raise your children.
So if they take the children away from you , you can ask the Native Americans how that work out for most of them .
in the mean time we all learn in GEN... the King of Sodom Wanted the people ( and probably mostly all the kids. Hell wants the kids in every generation ) and we all know what happened to Sodom just after this..

But Abraham made sure that the captives all could all go and make their own choices and not be a slave to anyone..

He / the priest "King of peace" thus God himself made sure they did not give or have to give one of them to the village idiots and perverts in Sodom. if any of those people went to Sodom it was by their own choices.
we all know what happened to Sodom just after that .
well the village idiots and pervs wants the kids again..

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

Sorry again that I misunderstood with Australia and NZ, I didn't check. There are no more native Tasmanians. There were other fights.

There were in history people like Minister Wilberforce who judged actions of his time in Real Christianity... There were popes. And the Anglicans and Catholics check through things. Jesus is one judge for all.