Is there such a thing as an evil person?

[Valkenar]

A couple people have said there needs to be an evil person in order for the word to have meaning. I'd offer that there are plenty of ideas we have that are concept-only. For example, unicorns don't have to exist for us to understand what one would be. Similarly, there doesn't need to exist an evil person to understand what that would mean.

But for common conversation I'll go along with the idea that it's a reasonable use of the word to refer to people who do substantially more evil than others. On that basis, Hitler is properly designated evil and so forth. When I say there is no such thing as evil, it's not that I mean there are no immoral acts. Just that it's just that evilness is not a character trait. There are character traits that contribute to immorality, but nothing as straightforward as a generalized evil.

Still, the point about evil being relative speaks to my original point, that what people do is take actions. These actions can have helpful or harmful effects, can be done with helpful or harmful intentions, and with varying degrees of attention to the repercussions upon other people. Still, they're just actions, and while we recognize them as wrong or right it's not a specific manifestation of some evilness in the universe. Everyone believes their morality system is objectively valid, even the people we would perceive to be most evil.

[Panther]

Done!

On another note... Putting quotes around the word "culture" when referring to Native Americans is a little insulting. My Cherokee culture (and heritage) is just as important as my Scottish culture (and heritage) is just as important as my English or Dutch cultures (and heritages) and are just as important as any of the other of the 57 varieties contained in this "mutt". Because one group lived in teepees & fought with bow & spear while the other lived in mud huts & fought with bow & sword, while others lived in castles... just because some were Catholic, some were Protestant, some worshipped Mother Earth & Father Sky... Just because some fled for freedom, others fought for freedom, and some were lost on the Trail of Tears... And just because some had a Patriarchal society while others had a Matriarchal society... Each of these "cultures" has given their own contributions. Each deserve respect. Each are important in their own way...

[cxt]

Panther

Barney?????

Ok now your really are frightening me

Judgeing by how throughly that purple creature has woven itself into the fabric of the nation--we should all be afraid-very afraid.

(speaking as someone who has to shell out major bucks for Barney and his ilk--or face a group of sad eyed children)

[Paul_C]

“Now, if you can argue that Jackson intended to move the Native Americans with the goal to up-end them, destroy their culture, and eliminate them by attrition, then you could say he was evil”

I would be willing to say that was exactly the goal.

The goal was to up end the Native American and assimilate them if not destroy them, which is pretty much what happened. Since this process was fairly complete it goes down in the history books as a horrible action but with ultimately good consequences (for the victors) not what it truly was, which was genocide. Now lets say the Native American was able to hold off American expansion by the skin of their teeth I think the history books would tell a completely different story. I would think the word genocide would be used a lot more freely then it is today when describing that point in American history. I would also think that the Native Americans would describe the Presidents (not just Jackson) that were involved as evil.

So if Hitler won and assimilated the populations of Europe, which would have changed the face of Europe, would he still have been deemed evil? Would what he did be considered genocide or just the strengthening and expansion of the German culture?

[Med Tech]

On another note... Putting quotes around the word "culture" when referring to Native Americans is a little insulting.

Panther, it was not my intent to insult or demean the culture of Native Americans. I have a personal beef with the use of casinos by tribes through huge legal loopholes that help casino companies more than the tribes, and shackle them to gaming interests, in the guise of 'helping them.'

[Panther]

Med Tech,

I completely agree... As someone who is part (I think it's my left leg... )
Native American, I haven't gained from the Reservation Casinos... Got asked to leave Foxwood once because they didn't like my "memory" for playing blackjack, but in the end they were OK with me because I gave, ummmm, "lost" all of my winnings back, tipped the dealer, kept a chip as a memento, and walked out even... However, my very few times at Casinos are proof that I have a "limit" that I place on the "entertainment" value... and this was proven again with my trip (part business, part pleasure) to Vegas last week, where I spent some entertainment time on the order of hours and hours at the tables and walked away with that costing me very little of my money. Worth the "entertainment" value that cost me way less than any show I could have gone to and on a cost/hr basis was slightly more than I've spent at Jillians shooting pool or playing the arcade games... Needless to say, I wouldn't do it for a living, but I know of some collegues who were part of the MIT blackjack team in their mis-spent youth who got in, got out and don't gamble at all any more... kind of a "not allowed" for them.

[benzocaine]

I saw a special program about the MIT blackjack team on (I believe it was) the history channel.

So did your friend help you improve your um.. memory Panther?

Back to the topic.

There is a casino in the Noth Carolina mountains Cherokee resevationthat I went to last year. From what I saw it wasn't exactly making the people rich there.

Justin, Comparing the existance to evil VS the existance to Unicorns is like comparing apples to Oranges.

[Med Tech]

“Now, if you can argue that Jackson intended to move the Native Americans with the goal to up-end them, destroy their culture, and eliminate them by attrition, then you could say he was evil”

I would be willing to say that was exactly the goal.
The goal was to up end the Native American and assimilate them if not destroy them, which is pretty much what happened. Since this process was fairly complete it goes down in the history books as a horrible action but with ultimately good consequences (for the victors) not what it truly was, which was genocide. Now lets say the Native American was able to hold off American expansion by the skin of their teeth I think the history books would tell a completely different story. I would think the word genocide would be used a lot more freely then it is today when describing that point in American history. I would also think that the Native Americans would describe the Presidents (not just Jackson) that were involved as evil.

Paul, the goal was to remove Native Americans from areas of constant conflict, and place them in areas not facing rapid expansion by whites. Massive forced assimilation has not taken place, nor has that been government policy. In effect, your assertion that the original goal was of evil intent and repercussion is wrong. Nor was it genocide. After mistakes were made, General Scott made what he could of the situation by allowing the Cherokee to move in smaller groups, enabling them to hunt and avoiding mass starvation. Congress passed that act, and the president enforced it, as was his job. If Jackson had vetoed it, it would have passed anyway. And if the Trail of Tears hadn't happened, Georgia would have set up the conditions for a massacre that would have wiped out the Cherokee. I'm not saying I agree with the whole thing, but I am saying that the Trail of Tears is still preferable to the alternative, a Sea of Blood.

Throughout human history, smaller, less-equipped and technologically inferior peoples have been obliterated by their larger, more advanced neighbors. If Congress had not acted, and the President not enforced that act, massive bloodshed would have resulted in just that, an extinct people. I doubt their descendents would agree with you that it would be better if they didn't exist so that more people would agree with you and speak more freely of genocide, and degrade the memory of US Presidents, good and bad.

So if Hitler won and assimilated the populations of Europe, which would have changed the face of Europe, would he still have been deemed evil? Would what he did be considered genocide or just the strengthening and expansion of the German culture?

1. Andrew Jackson didn't attempt to line up an entire people and kill them via fireing squads, gas, etc.
2. The US expelled the Cherokee from Goergia, an established state of the union.
3. The Trail of Tears was initiated peacefully, after long negotiations, and agreed upon by representatives chosen by the Native Americans themselves.

You're comparing apples and oranges.

[IJ]

"2. The US expelled the Cherokee from Goergia, an established state of the union."

Are you serious?

[Med Tech]

"2. The US expelled the Cherokee from Goergia, an established state of the union."

Are you serious?

Well, yes, Ian, I am serious. As proof that Georgia was an established state of the Union, I present Cherokee Nation v State of Georgia, a U.S. Supreme Court case, in 1831.

Kinda makes it apples and oranges to compare that to Hitler's invasion of countries never bound to Germany in any fashion. But why let facts get in the way of blowing things out of proportion, right?

Pardon my crankiness, I'm pushing 30 hours without sleep.

[Paul_C]

Med Tech,

I understand that no culture is innocent and no people are innocent. Through out history mankind has been at war with one another I’m not arguing that. My comments are not about condemning or justifying what was done here in the US or what was done in Germany. My comments are to question why does one atrocity go down in the history books as a holocaust or great evil, and the other does not? My answer is because the winners wrote the history books and determined what an evil is. Med Tech by you denying the fact that what happened to the Native American was not genocide proves my point. The Native American was slaughtered by those who first settled this country and the slaughter continued by those who founded its government. Any alteration of that fact is rewriting history. There were over 12 million Native Americans made up of several different nations, different languages and different cultures populating North American at the time the US was first colonized. By the 1800’s 95% where were gone, wipe out. If that’s not genocide then what is? The US Cavalry use to purposely give blankets infected with smallpox to the plains Indians. And I'm sorry to say they also did line up native Americans and gun them down. Children were gathered up taken away and put in schools to assimilate them into US society. There are even documented cases of Native American women being sterilized. The US had 350 treaties with Native Americans and the US broke every one of them. The only difference between what Hitler did in World War II and what was done to the Native Americans is that Hitler was far more efficient. Speaking of Hitler I thought this was very interesting.

"Hitler's concept of concentration camps as well as the practicality of genocide owed much, so he claimed, to his studies of English and United States history. He admired the camps for Boer prisoners in South Africa and for the Indians in the wild west; and often praised to his inner circle the efficiency of America's extermination - by starvation and uneven combat - of the red savages who could not be tamed by captivity." P. 202, "Adolph Hitler" by John Toland

Go back to your history books in high school when they talked about General Custer he was remembered as a war hero who was ambushed and slaughtered at Little Bighorn. I bet you’ll have a hard time finding any mention of the tribes Custer and his men wiped out during his raids on Native American settlements, which includes the women and children.

Evils happen in this world that are forgotten or just ignored because they are too embarrassing to confront. Again, If Hitler wad won and his dream fulfilled do you really think he would go down in history as Evil? No he wouldn’t, it’s hard to imagine that but just imagine who would be writing the books and who would be teaching the history classes.

[Valkenar]

Well, yes, Ian, I am serious. As proof that Georgia was an established state of the Union, I present Cherokee Nation v State of Georgia, a U.S. Supreme Court case, in 1831.

I don't think the question is whether Georgia was a state or not. The question is whether that gives them the right to displace the Cherokee. In my book, We did not have a right to the land to begin with, we just conquered for it. Whether the supreme court said it was okay or not is irrelevant to the moral question.

[cxt]

Paul C

Not a case of "two wrongs making a right" but your view seems somewhat one-sided.

Having NA in my family I can attest to the level of violence with the "tribes" namely the number of Crows those " Murdering SOBS" (quoting here) the Souix butchered the amount of good hunting land the larger, more cohensive, better organized Souix were able to take (by force) the number of other tribal groups "forced" off what they see as "their" land by other NA.

Take a look sometime at the history of intertribal warfare in the Americas--it was generally what is known as war to the knife in which the defeated were slain to last man, the girls and young women taken as slaves--the older women,men and boys killed out of hand--those of very young age kept as slaves.

Up in Montana/Wyoming there is at least one mass grave which if memeory serves contains the remains of about 1500 people--butchered and scalped-and well before the white man ever sat foot on the soil.

Read about the 100s of years of pretty much continious warfare amoung the tribes of the east--the Huron and Iraquois--the number of Huron groups butched to the last man, women and child.

Kinda WHY some tribes were so willing to help various factions of English, French etc--they were looking to put an end to their "traditional" enemies once and for all.

Gain revenge for 100's year of killing etc.

The tribal lands "taken" by force and held thu murder, rape and plunder. Slave raids, burning crops that were needed to sustain the people thu the winter.

The torture.

If you have time you also might want read a bit about the the folks being killed, butchered and EATEN in the Southwest.

You mentioned General Custer--did you know that many PERIOD (thats important--as it reflects the values and attitides of the folks that were actually there) NA opponents of Custer held him in consderable regard?

Oh, they hated him but they also respected him--since his manner of waging war were not so different from their own.

What was done to the NA was a tragic, shameful, and horrifc thing.

But lets ALSO not forget the NA were warring, and killing, and wiping out entire tribes well before we came.

No-ones hands are clean enough here to go round pointing fingers at each other.

[Dana Sheets]

But we can all agree that if it's Native Americans killing each other, the White man killing them, or Hitler killing jews - massive exterminations of individuals for material gains is considered evil?

Or does survival somehow qualify evil? If you have to do it to survive then it's not evil.

[cxt]

Dana

Tough question.

I guess survival would not be considered evil.

The hard part would be trying to decide where "survival" ended and "material gain" started.

Tough question.