Soloist wrote: ↑Mon Apr 10, 2023 10:28 am
It’s really too bad the history of American christianity is stained by so much evil.
America really has two original sins and, unfortunately, Christianity was weaponized to justify both of them:
The genocide of America's native peoples
Slavery and it's legacy of racism.
It is hard to find some aspect of the modern American landscape that was not affected by one or the other. I find it unseemly for Christians to expend so much energy denying either happened, or that their legacies no longer affect our society.
You missed rebellion against their king.
UK resolved slavery before us and attempted to rule justly for the Native Americans.
2 x
Soloist, but I hate singing alone Soloist, but my wife posts with me Soloist, but I believe in community Soloist, but I want God in the pilot seat
Soloist wrote: ↑Mon Apr 10, 2023 10:28 am
It’s really too bad the history of American christianity is stained by so much evil.
America really has two original sins and, unfortunately, Christianity was weaponized to justify both of them:
The genocide of America's native peoples
Slavery and it's legacy of racism.
It is hard to find some aspect of the modern American landscape that was not affected by one or the other. I find it unseemly for Christians to expend so much energy denying either happened, or that their legacies no longer affect our society.
You missed rebellion against their king.
UK resolved slavery before us and attempted to rule justly for the Native Americans.
Notice how to the modern liberal, the only sin that exists is racism (or other “bigotry” like not strongly affirming homosexuals).
America really has two original sins and, unfortunately, Christianity was weaponized to justify both of them:
The genocide of America's native peoples
Slavery and it's legacy of racism.
It is hard to find some aspect of the modern American landscape that was not affected by one or the other. I find it unseemly for Christians to expend so much energy denying either happened, or that their legacies no longer affect our society.
You missed rebellion against their king.
UK resolved slavery before us and attempted to rule justly for the Native Americans.
Notice how to the modern liberal, the only sin that exists is racism (or other “bigotry” like not strongly affirming homosexuals).
Do you think that is an original sin that goes back to the founding of the nation and has pervaded our society ever since?
If so, feel free to make the argument.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
Soloist wrote: ↑Mon Apr 10, 2023 10:28 am
It’s really too bad the history of American christianity is stained by so much evil.
America really has two original sins and, unfortunately, Christianity was weaponized to justify both of them:
The genocide of America's native peoples
Slavery and it's legacy of racism.
It is hard to find some aspect of the modern American landscape that was not affected by one or the other. I find it unseemly for Christians to expend so much energy denying either happened, or that their legacies no longer affect our society.
Actually both of those things were being done before the country of America was established. They were being done by the French, the English, the Dutch, and the Spanish on the lands that are now the USA.
Further, they were far from unique sins in that the North American continent was not the only place that these happened. African slaves were in Mexico, the Caribbean, and South America. And wars of conquest that killed and drove people from lands were happening everywhere, and for thousands of years. Read the Old Testament. Look at Argentina. Look at the Sakhalin Island.
I find this term "Americas original sin" to be a sort of strange and silly virtue signal, or left wing dog whistle.
If we want to find original sins of America, how about greed? That probably is more foundational than those two are. How about rebellion? That is probably more unique.
I'm not denying that they happened. They did. Do Christians actually deny that they happened, or is this just something to say?
I also agree that the repercussions are still being felt today.
Soloist wrote: ↑Mon Apr 10, 2023 10:28 am
It’s really too bad the history of American christianity is stained by so much evil.
America really has two original sins and, unfortunately, Christianity was weaponized to justify both of them:
The genocide of America's native peoples
Slavery and it's legacy of racism.
It is hard to find some aspect of the modern American landscape that was not affected by one or the other. I find it unseemly for Christians to expend so much energy denying either happened, or that their legacies no longer affect our society.
Actually both of those things were being done before the country of America was established. They were being done by the French, the English, the Dutch, and the Spanish on the lands that are now the USA.
Further, they were far from unique sins in that the North American continent was not the only place that these happened. African slaves were in Mexico, the Caribbean, and South America. And wars of conquest that killed and drove people from lands were happening everywhere, and for thousands of years. Read the Old Testament. Look at Argentina. Look at the Sakhalin Island.
I find this term "Americas original sin" to be a sort of strange and silly virtue signal, or left wing dog whistle.
If we want to find original sins of America, how about greed? That probably is more foundational than those two are. How about rebellion? That is probably more unique.
I'm not denying that they happened. They did. Do Christians actually deny that they happened, or is this just something to say?
I also agree that the repercussions are still being felt today.
It isn't my invention. It is a commonly used phrase. Although more commonly used for slavery than Indian genocide.
I know it is a commonly used phrase - in certain circles. I am aware of that. I just disagree with the idea that if we were to choose two underlying iniquities that are foundational and perhaps unique to the founding of this nation, they would be those two. Two that just so happen to dovetail perfectly with the liberal political ideology, an ideology that is at constant friction with the idea that there is in fact such a thing as sin at all. It is a weird.
To reiterate, I'm not at all saying these two things don't exist. I am merely taking issue with the claim of "original". Which is really a pretty hefty word, and one that carries all the weight of the the matter. Because it alone ties things such as CRT/institutional racism, white fragility, etc., into the fabric of the nations founding. Racism no doubt was present. But it wasn't the only sin present, nor was it a uniquely American thing. It wasn't Americas "Original" sin. I think greed has a much stronger claim to that title. Greed was the underlying sin from which slavery flowed, and the underlying sin from which the taking of Indian lands flowed. Greed was arguably connected with the refusal to pay taxes to King George.
RZehr wrote: ↑Mon Apr 10, 2023 4:03 pm
I know it is a commonly used phrase - in certain circles. I am aware of that. I just disagree with the idea that if we were to choose two underlying iniquities that are foundational and perhaps unique to the founding of this nation, they would be those two. Two that just so happen to dovetail perfectly with the liberal political ideology, an ideology that is at constant friction with the idea that there is in fact such a thing as sin at all. It is a weird.
To reiterate, I'm not at all saying these two things don't exist. I am merely taking issue with the claim of "original". Which is really a pretty hefty word, and one that carries all the weight of the the matter. Because it alone ties things such as CRT/institutional racism, white fragility, etc., into the fabric of the nations founding. Racism no doubt was present. But it wasn't the only sin present, nor was it a uniquely American thing. It wasn't Americas "Original" sin. I think greed has a much stronger claim to that title. Greed was the underlying sin from which slavery flowed, and the underlying sin from which the taking of Indian lands flowed. Greed was arguably connected with the refusal to pay taxes to King George.
Well sure, greed was behind both slavery and Indian "removals." But greed is simply human nature, not a specific government policy. Slavery and Indian genocide both were. And I think you will have a hard time pointing to two other policies originating from the founding of the nation and before that have had such a consequential effect on the cultural landscape of this country.
Take your own community for example. In the first place, it was built on Wasco, Warm Springs, and Paiute lands. We can argue the specifics, but Central and Eastern Oregon was basically "opened up" for white settlement unofficial and official policies of Indian removals to reservations, or just outright killing. So the eradication of Indian communities are what made White settlement possible. And it wasn't really that long ago.
Why do I say "White settlement?" Because Oregon was actually founded as a White-only state. There were plenty of poor black farmers escaping slavery in the wake of the civil war, many of whom looked west for opportunity. But woe to any who might have chosen Oregon. Oregon's first laws published in 1843 prohibited black settlement and specified the penalty of lashing for any Blacks who defied. These were were replaced in 1849 by exclusion laws that specified “it shall not be lawful for any negro or mulatto to enter into, or reside” in Oregon. Oregon's first Constitution passed in 1857 included Black exclusion laws that were nullified by the passage of the 14th Amendment but were not actually repealed until 1926. https://www.oregonencyclopedia.org/arti ... DSdjXbMIQ8 For many decades after repeal, Blacks were still effectively barred from owning land in Oregon by banks who refused to finance mortgages for Black farmers, or any Blacks who wished to buy property outside of a few designated red-lined areas like North Portland. In the 1920s, the KKK numbered over 35,000 in Oregon. This was Ashland in 1920, for example
And this was Portland in 1920
So the fact that Oregon Oregon in general and Central Oregon in specific was a nearly all-White state for over a century is due to these two "original sins." Time are changing now with lots of Hispanic migration to the area. But one can still see the legacy of these two "sins" everywhere one looks in Oregon.
Does that mean Whites currently living in Central Oregon are complicit? No, not necessarily. Unless they are still deliberately perpetrating the sins of their ancestors. But they should be aware of their own history and the fact that the cultural landscape in which they live did not simply arise naturally.
Can you point to any other such "sinful" government policies that reach back to the founding of the nation and before, and that have had a bigger influence on the subsequent history of this country? Even in states like Oregon where it is not immediately obvious?
1 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
Greed/covetousness are protected by American law, they are not banned. And original and current government policies encouraged them. Think about what the impact it would have on our economy if the government actually instituted policies to combat these problems. It would be hugely impactful.
And we can't say that the non-existence of greed laws are different than actual existing laws, because as far as I know, there were no anti-slavery laws either. And in the absence, both greed and slavery were permitted by default.
Again, focus on the word "original". What is it supposed to communicate in context?
Let me repeat:
1. Both slavery and genocide were existing prior to the founding of the US. I assume that you are more familiar with The 1619 Project than I am. The US proclaimed independence in 1776. How many years difference is that? Also, why did the Revolutionary War start? It certainly wasn't because England was putting the brakes on westward expansion. Nor was is because England wanted to outlaw slavery. Can you point to any founding documents that support the idea that this country was established in order to take Indian lands, and to protect slavery? Anything documentation similar to what is available from the Civil War?
2. Europeans did not decide to come to America so that they could have a place to practice racism. They came to get rich, and for religious freedom. That is why Europeans came, and one of those reason is why Christopher Columbus was sailing in the first place. Everything else flowed out of those.
You are expending a lot of energy arguing that slavery and Indian removals happened, and that we still deal with them today. Again, that is not the argument. The State of Oregon didn't even exist in 1776. I think it was under Indian and French control. So clearly, it is impossible for anything the State of Oregon did to be held up as proof of "Americas Original Sins". Can you better explain how Oregon's much later racist laws, should be construed as evidence of the original sins of the original 13 colonies?
In fact, one could easily argue that Americas Original Sins are greed and violence. The right to bear arms is the second amendment. I don't think the right to take Indian lands and the right to enslave people are at all. Meanwhile the Declaration of Independence says that all men are created equal, and complains that the King cut off their trade and taxed them, and they complain that the King was bringing the Indians to their frontiers. Obviously acted despicable in spite of these written sentiments. Nonetheless, these written documents are the reference points for the direction the new country would later take. What difference it may have been if, the nation was truly build upon slavery and genocide, and these two sins might have been written in the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution.
But I think the very simple truth is merely that these writers who first coined the phrase did it more for "stickiness" and less for lack of stronger sins. They started with the topics, and then searched for a phrase to bring attention, and to sell the importance. They did not start with a blank slate, and try to identify the most original and unique sins that America was founded on. We all know that these are books that are written for purposes other than to accurately determine the two worst unique sins.
We've always known the very well documented reasons that America was founded, and the principles were written down. We don't have to guess, or have revisionist come 250 years later and say well, actually.... and proceed to enlighten folks on what really was going on.
If its uniqueness, then I'd say freedom, religious freedom, and economic opportunity. If it is unique original sins that we are looking for, there is probably plenty to choose from, but I'd say rebellion, and greed, and violence. These are the things that drove America to become a country. And with or without further westward expansion, and with or without slavery, these other things were present and are really what cause America to be born.
You think that if America stopped expanding westward, and didn't have slavery, then the USA wouldn't have been born?
RZehr wrote: ↑Mon Apr 10, 2023 8:40 pmAgain, focus on the word "original". What is it supposed to communicate in context?
Not that they were invented by Americans. Nothing is really new under the sun. The Romans had slaves as did the Israelites. And both committed genocide. Rather, the point is that they were the twin sins upon which the nation was built from the earliest settlements onward. Without both slavery and Indian genocide you cannot have the country we have today. Would we still have a nation? Perhaps. Or perhaps it would be dozens of different nations across the continent. But it would be unrecognizably different. I don't think there is any argument to the contrary.
RZehr wrote: ↑Mon Apr 10, 2023 8:40 pmCan you better explain how Oregon's much later racist laws, should be construed as evidence of the original sins of the original 13 colonies?
They are simply examples to show that sins started centuries earlier with the 13 colonies and original settlements were perpetuated with great malice and effort forward into the 20th Century in places like Oregon where, unlike the deep south, we do not normally see them. I remember as a child in the 1970s when our parents drove us on cross country trips and we once passed through the deep south and saw sharecroppers shacks and my dad told us about segregated drinking fountains and schools. What we didn't learn was that our own Oregon had the same history of racism, just written with a different brush.
RZehr wrote: ↑Mon Apr 10, 2023 8:40 pmYou think that if America stopped expanding westward, and didn't have slavery, then the USA wouldn't have been born?
The country would be unrecognizable from today. Which is exactly the point. Maybe it would be a dozen or more different nations. What would a more peaceful co-existence with the native inhabitants have looked like? An equal exchange of values and knowledge? We can never know. But I doubt we would be the nation that today has the most powerful and expensive military that has ever existed in human history.
My original point back where this tangent started was not to argue that such sins existed. They are historical fact. But rather to agree with Soloist's point that "the history of American Christianity is stained with so much evil." I was simply agreeing with Soloist and pointing out that Christianity was weaponized from the earliest beginnings of this country to support both slavery and Indian genocide. Which is also historical fact.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
