In the previous post we outline some myths typically progressive in around the 12 October. It is then to write another entry that is your pair about the problems that appear in the visions of the ‘right wing’. In this case, I don’t know how dominant these problems, but they are all of them statements with which I have actually found.
The previous entry dealt with myths, this on contradictions. At the end of the entry we will discuss the importance of the distinction. Another note: the word progressive has the advantage of identifying a large group without specifying it to an ideology in particular; to the other side does not have equivalent word (apart from ‘rights’). If I put a conservative, some would say that does not apply to liberals; and the same if a liberal use. The idea is to use a generic word that applies to a segment of the discussion on a extensive way, and therefore, for now will be on the right. These these considerations, we may enter into the matter.
Contradiction 1. The conquest was good because it brought civilization, at the same time it promotes the principle of non-aggression
Reacting to the criticism of the progressive, it will be emphasized that the conquest brought us language, civilization, religion etc (what you want). At the same time, among those who declare as above is displayed, on other occasions, the defense of the idea of non-aggression: That what is invalid is the use and threat of force, of violence, in the interactions. Understanding the State as structured by coercion and force, from that principle was critical of the regulation (and carrying the argument to its logical extreme, to the tax).
The contradiction should be evident. The Conquest was not a peaceful process of exchange, was a violent process of coercion. It is impossible to defend, in good faith, the preponderance unrestricted condemn the violence (thought to include, say, VAT or labor regulations) and at the same time celebrate a process numb completely of violence. Because if you are going to justify the ultimate violence by their results (for now not even enter in to discuss the factual errors of this ‘brought the civilization), then the famous principle defended was never the issue.
Contradiction 2. They were not owners (Terra Nullius) at the same time the idea of property is something universal.
Among the justifications for the appropriation of european of the New World, and this is something old, is already in Locke, at least, is the idea that the inhabitants did not have any ownership on those lands. Whether it was because they were declared nomads, and only a sedentary people now can have the property; or even because they did not have the idea of property in land, the case is that your use of those lands did not constitute property. Legally, then they were Terra Nullius -available for the first that claimed to. At the same time, among these people it is common to declare that the idea of property is universal -of universal validity, and found indeed across cultures: mine and yours are things, very basic.
Again, we are faced with an obvious contradiction. Because we have a long and diverse groups of culture who could not claim that they were desapropiadas, stole their land, those ideas do not apply. And at the same time it declares that the property is a universal phenomenon, with no exceptions. If the property is a phenomenon so universal, and if it is valid the principle that no one can remove his property without his consent, then the Conquest is clearly not a process to respect the property of others, but a process not only of ownership but of expropriation, something that, among these people, is usually maligned deliberately.
Contradiction 3. Criticize the Conquest is to apply principles of other eras, that is, at the same time, the principles themselves are of universal validity.
A third contradiction is the insistence that all of the critics of the arrival of the europeans are committing the sin of anachronism: to Criticize people of the SIXTEENTH century according to the canons of the TWENTY-first century. And it clearly should not be. At the same time, it is common in these people to a rigid defense of its principles in the present, under the idea that -finally – your ideas are universally valid, and that all criticism is wrong. In more than one case, this leads to wonder about the limits of democracy, the old argument of the tyranny of the majority, the old distrust by the crowd, given that a majority may well approve something that is immoral.
Then, it proposes that the majority opinion is not sufficient to validate something morally, and at the same time it justifies something, because it corresponded to the opinion of the majority of their time. The contradiction is less flagrant than in previous occasions: For example, someone might say that that this circumstance does not justify, but that it lessens the guilt. However, it is still a voltage pragmatic in the argument.
In the former cases, given that the center is in the contradiction, not I walked mostly in the correction of empirical assertion. In this case I think it is necessary, because it shows a lack of understanding fully of the topic. It is quite well known, in fact, it was one of the recurring themes among apologists, pro-hispanic, that the conduct of the conquerors was a topic discussed at the time, in Spain. Is the very Brief Relation of the Destruction of the Indies, is the Board of Valladolid, are the New Laws. The type and nature of the critical are diverse, and range from those who at the time did not believe in the justification of the Conquest as such, to those who (as the emperor Charles V), although they believed in the validity of the Conquest were against the excesses of the conquistadors against the native peoples. In fact, we are faced with cases in which the dispute came to the armed conflict. The attempt to implement the New Laws by the first viceroy in Peru generated a rebellion, the assassination of the viceroy, and even the conquistadors thought to be independent. Clearly, we are not faced with facts that were clearly and easily accepted at the time.
By the way, raised so the discussion is hidden to a group that is quite important: When we say that the Conquest was justified or not at the time, remember that those who worked and lived in those years are not reduced to the spaniards, but include the native peoples. And here clearly the conquest was not something accepted or desired.
Then, who were those of the era who accepted the conquest, and the conduct of the conquerors? That does not include the indigenous peoples, nor does it include a part, of a certain influence, of the opinion and authority of the spaniards. But it is the view that it was acceptable, which is like, ‘what’s that corresponded to the time’. What does not cease to be a gross over simplification of an era that, like all, was complex.
One final note. The problems in the standard interpretation of progressivism put them down as myths Usually start from a statement of fact correct, but overstep and get wrong conclusions. Then, the main problem is usually empirical. In this case, the problems are of another type (although, in fact, there are also empirical problems): There is a specific discourse about the Conquest that contradicts the speech-general to argue these people. In other words, given their desire to justify the Conquest (why progressives oppose?) then there is no problem in falling into contradiction with what they supposedly say in general for that of constructing a discourse that justifies it. If you want to, there is a topic in good faith that it is something more deep, and at least it’s different, what’s going on among progressives.