Update

(Originally posted February 06, 2009)

Update

Welcome back, readers! My friend Chris just visited briefly from Cincinnati. That was exciting. I told him he should transfer to UT.

People sometimes ask me, “Drew, why don’t you post more frequently?” The simple answer is that true brilliance (like mine) only comes in spurts. But there is also a more complex answer:  The Myspace setup actually discourages me from making short posts. Because my profile only shows my last five writings, any short posts would quickly crowd out the lengthier, more brilliant ones.

But I have a solution. Myspace has irked me a bit lately; for example, they messed up some of my links a few weeks ago. Therefore, I am thinking about transferring The DREW BLOG to WordPress or Blogspot. That way I will feel better about mixing in some short, pertinent posts along with my lengthier sermons.

Also, readers without Myspace accounts should gain the ability to comment, and I can get away from the annoying technical errors of Myspace. These errors have gotten worse lately and signficantly slowed me down when I try to post.

Advertisements

2 Responses to “Update”


  1. 1 Jordan Caylor May 3, 2010 at 1:08 am

    I will contest your opinion of Native Americans because you don’t truly understand the true nature of their spirituality. Whether or not you agree with another’s religious beliefs it is one of the tenets of this country to respect their freedom to worship whatever god they please. For the Indians, their God was NATURE, and all the life sustaining elements it provided, not excluding the land. Therefore, when their land was taken from them it was like stripping them of their spirituality. While they’re beliefs were somewhat mystical and primitive I don’t necessarily think they were wrong and whether or not you agree with them is irrelevant. I will also remind you that it was the Indians who taught the Puritan settlers how to successfully farm the sandy soils along the coastal plain. As for john Locke and the social contract theory, it only works when both parties fully understand the terms of the agreement and are willing participants in the negotiation. If either parties god-given rights as defined by Locke or in our case, the constitution, are violated by the contract then it is nullified and the one wronged can kick the other’s ass. Therefore, not only was the removal of the Indians wrong but it was unconstitutional. I guess I should ask whether you believe the words of our forefathers, that all men are created equal?

  2. 2 Drew May 3, 2010 at 9:03 pm

    I’m pretty sure you meant to comment on the chronologically previous post, but since I can’t figure out how to move comments in WordPress I guess I’ll just respond here.

    I only briefly touched on John Locke in the post, but his theories were actually used (to some extent) to justify our conquest of the Indians. If you read Locke’s Second Treatise on Government, Chapter 5 talks about how humans can acquire property from the state of nature. The basic idea is that they appropriate property by exerting effort over it. Furthermore, they may only obtain property if they are going to use it or build wealth with it — rather than simply letting it spoil. In the wild, you are allowed to lay claim to as many apples as you can gather and eat, but if you lay claim to a whole orchard of apples, there is no way you can eat them all before they spoil. Therefore, you may not claim that many. (If you figure out a way to sell the apples to other people, at that point you’re at least using them, and so then it’s fine to claim them.)

    The same goes for land. If North America had absolutely zero people in it, and then if myself and 1000 other people were unleashed on it, I couldn’t simply declare, “Alright, guys, Florida and Georgia and South Carolina all belong to me! And then Tennessee will be my backyard! You other 1000 guys can divy up the rest!” If I did that, I would be claiming more land than I could use.

    And so the Lockean argument is that the Indians were extremely spread out over the land and were basically claiming more than they could use. It’s not a perfect argument because the Indians did indeed make *some* use of the land, but the basic idea is that their nomadic and communist lifestyle essentially did not give them the right to claim the whole continent for themselves. I do think it’s a decent argument.

    And as I pointed out elsewhere in the post, I’m also glad for other reasons that the Indians lost out. Basically, they tended in general to have rather wicked cultures. (And also, some of the wars were technically started by them.) You stated in your comment that “while they’re beliefs were somewhat mystical and primitive I don’t necessarily think they were wrong.” Well, do you think they were right? It’s either one or the other.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




ANALYSIS
YOU WON'T
FIND ANYWHERE ELSE

Author


%d bloggers like this: