William Penn

[Szdfan]

If I remember correctly, it is racist to have ethnically homogeneous churches.
Now, am I hearing right that is problematic, racist, and colonizing to have different races - European and Native in this case - live on the same land together in peace?

It would be colonizing to move onto someone else’s land and then expect them to adhere to all of YOUR standards of law, custom, religion, dress, land tenure, etc.

I’m not sure why this is even remotely controversial. It was called the COLONY of Pennsylvania for Pete’s sake. What do you think that means? The land wasn’t empty when they got there.

You’re missing my bigger point, aren’t you.

And, should say “for Penn’s sake” don’tcha think? Or Bill’s?
Sure it was colonizing.

I don’t think I understand your point either.

[RZehr]

Here:

In many ways, Penn was as much a missionary as a colonizer. If one can separate those two things. And his vision for PA was one in which the native groups and settlers lived together peacefully but according to European standards and laws. In other words, he didn't want to massacre Indians or drive them out. He wanted to turn them into good Quakers with whom they could live together in peace according to European laws and customs.

This was a very progressive view for its time. It became the mainstream view in the US by the latter half of the 19th century, 200 years after William Penn with the system of reservations, boarding schools, and attempts to erase the Indian-ness of native groups and assimilate them rather than simply eradicate them. In fact, it wasn't really until the mid-20th Century that Penn's views really started to fall out of favor. And even today they still hold sway in many respects.

On one hand, (I’m not really singling you personally out here Ken. Just using what you posted.) we are told that homogeneous churches are evidence of a lack of the Great Commission at best, and possibly something worse.

And yet people will turn around and decry Penn, because he didn’t segregate himself to Europe. Totally missing that what he did by pioneering a multicultural place where all these groups could live in harmony and faith and peace.

The life that the natives lived without Christ is not something that should ever be celebrated. They needed Christ. This idea that native impoverished tribes around the world should be treated like an endangered species to be kept frozen in place for all time is racist and evolutionary thinking that is far more evil than Penn making deals with Indians.

[Ken]

Here:

In many ways, Penn was as much a missionary as a colonizer. If one can separate those two things. And his vision for PA was one in which the native groups and settlers lived together peacefully but according to European standards and laws. In other words, he didn't want to massacre Indians or drive them out. He wanted to turn them into good Quakers with whom they could live together in peace according to European laws and customs.

This was a very progressive view for its time. It became the mainstream view in the US by the latter half of the 19th century, 200 years after William Penn with the system of reservations, boarding schools, and attempts to erase the Indian-ness of native groups and assimilate them rather than simply eradicate them. In fact, it wasn't really until the mid-20th Century that Penn's views really started to fall out of favor. And even today they still hold sway in many respects.

On one hand, (I’m not really singling you personally out here Ken. Just using what you posted.) we are told that homogeneous churches are evidence of a lack of the Great Commission at best, and possibly something worse.

And yet people will turn around and decry Penn, because he didn’t segregate himself to Europe. Totally missing that what he did by pioneering a multicultural place where all these groups could live in harmony and faith and peace.

The life that the natives lived without Christ is not something that should ever be celebrated. They needed Christ. This idea that native impoverished tribes around the world should be treated like an endangered species to be kept frozen in place for all time is racist and evolutionary thinking that is far more evil than Penn making deals with Indians.

I would suggest that you are confusing colonialism with Christianity. They are not at all one in the same.

Colonialism was about the acquisition of wealth and power. Which is the antithesis of true Christianity. William Penn did it in a particularly benevolent way for his time. That is true. And the world has always been about acquisition of wealth and power. That is also true. Just don't confuse it with true Christianity. Which is about the exact opposite things.

[barnhart]

https://apnews.com/article/william-penn ... 1f94ecd477

Did William Penn attempt "conquest through treaty"? If "yes", was this wrong?

I think he was doing the best he knew and it was a righteous thing from his perspective. This is an illustration of the limits of human insight.

Some will say historic figures must be judged by their time and ethic, not ours, because no one knew better at the time. Others say we must project our ethic back to evaluate them. Here are some general principles I lean on when thinking of the ethics of history.

1. It is rarely the case "no one knew better". Almost always there were voices of dissent with a more clear eye, less clouded by ambitioun. It is often more accurate to say "of the people that mattered by today's standards, no one knew better." Look among the conquered and dispossessed and you will find clear moral judgments of dissent, and often among the powerful group there were lonely voices of dissent as well.

2. Some will hold historic figures to account for current standards but have no moral imagination to look beyond what is legal or generally acceptable in society. While historic voices of dissent are lionized, current voices of dissent are marginalized or rejected.

I don't have an exact formula but I don't want to get to the place where I need to look at a calendar to decide what is wrong.

[Josh]

The world would be much better off if it had had a lot more William Penns.

[ohio jones]

The world would be much better off if it had had a lot more William Penns.

Maybe so. But if there were more than 1243 of them, there wouldn't have been enough woods to go around.

[Ernie]

And yet people will turn around and decry Penn, because he didn’t segregate himself to Europe. Totally missing that what he did by pioneering a multicultural place where all these groups could live in harmony and faith and peace.

The life that the natives lived without Christ is not something that should ever be celebrated. They needed Christ. This idea that native impoverished tribes around the world should be treated like an endangered species to be kept frozen in place for all time is racist and evolutionary thinking that is far more evil than Penn making deals with Indians.

I don't think these are either/or senarios.

I think it would have been possible to have all of the following...

1. Europeans coexisting with Native American tribes in a respectful manner without the aim to colonize most of the native American's land.
2. Native Americans preserving much of their culture and religion but given the opportunity to hear and embrace the Gospel if they wished.
3. Christian Native American colonies that preserved much of their culture but respected European Christian groups. (Think Ziesberger's work among the Natives.)
4. Christian European-American colonies that preserved much of their European culture, but respected Native American Christians groups. (Think Moravians and some Anabaptists.)
5. Multi-cultural Christian communities. (Think Bethlehem Moravian Community at one time having 15 languages in the community.) https://www.historicbethlehem.org/world ... hem-story/

[Ernie]

The world would be much better off if it had had a lot more William Penns.

Maybe so. But if there were more than 1243 of them, there wouldn't have been enough woods to go around.

Any particular reason for the number 1243?

[RZehr]

What Penn did was more honorable than what every other settler of the west did.
England wresting PA from the Dutch, and the then granting Penn the colonizational rights is in some way different that the American government wresting the west from Mexico England and Spain, and then granting that land to American settlers and homesteaders with no regard whatsoever to the Indians? All those Indian wars and massacres? Yet Penn is the colonizer and Americans aren’t?

Do people actually want to give that “stolen” land back to the Indians? Or do they want to keep what was “stolen” and pontificate and virtue signal on the matter instead?

If you want to grump about cheating, maybe consider William son Thomas instead.

[ohio jones]

The world would be much better off if it had had a lot more William Penns.

Maybe so. But if there were more than 1243 of them, there wouldn't have been enough woods to go around.

Any particular reason for the number 1243?

Land area of Earth: 57,268,900 square miles
Land area of Pennsylvania: 46,055 square miles
57,268,900 / 46,055 = 1243 and change