Colonialism = Slavery

[xbuzzerx]

THAT, which you dismiss as bla bla, was their way of ilfe and culture. That was the way they lived and had lived for millinia. It would not have changed without the coming of the whites.
The problem the Native Americans had, and have now, was the inability to control immigration. Immigrants came and pushed them aside. It is still happening.

What poetic irony.

[GiancarloC]

The problem the Native Americans had, and have now, was the inability to control immigration. Immigrants came and pushed them aside. It is still happening.

Typical. Twist and distort and try to find a way to blame immigration. Cry me a river.

I still don't know why this blatant xenophobia and racism is permitted on this site.

[Stardreamer]

That's just using powdery language to cover up what happened. And assimilated? Assimilated to what? Many of these cultures have retained many of their old traditions, especially in Central and South America.

Noone is covering up anything, though it is typical of some folks to over exaggerate and make one sided the number and types of atrocities that occurred. The natives engaged in genocidal raids and broken treaties as well as the Europeans, they just weren't as effective given the differences in the populations. I find it ironic that the only documented case of a discussion (no evidence at all it was followed through on) of giving infected blankets to native populations was an idea to break a siege of a fort when the natives were on a genocidal war to kill all Whites in the region. The siege was broken by a relief force and not small pox and any small pox occurring in the native population was caught during the slaughter of men, women and children of numerous small family farms in the region.

The assimilation is the assimilation of all the cultural groups that settled or lived here into what is now called the American culture.

[Benvolio]

Since it hasn't penetrated your brain when I said it nicely let me say it not nicely. Listen idiot. You are the only person with this hardon for "the only thing that changed was they went from not having modern conveniences to having them." You. No one else.

You are a liar. I did not say that. You lack the intellectual capacity to understand what I did say.

[GiancarloC]

Noone is covering up anything, though it is typical of some folks to over exaggerate and make one sided the number and types of atrocities that occurred. The natives engaged in genocidal raids and broken treaties as well as the Europeans, they just weren't as effective given the differences in the populations.

And it is typical for some to sugar coat all the criminal acts that were committed by the hands of the white man and this is no exaggeration. It's definitely not an exaggeration. The ones who deny these crimes ever happened or that they didn't happen to the extent supported by evidence are similar to holocaust deniers.

The assimilation is the assimilation of all the cultural groups that settled or lived here into what is now called the American culture.

There is no such assimilation. Immigrants who came here even over the years have retained their own cultures. There is no real thing as "American culture" and I'm not saying this to be offensive. Immigrants who come here often keep their own culture and this explains why areas of cities are still having these partitions.

[xbuzzerx]

Since it hasn't penetrated your brain when I said it nicely let me say it not nicely. Listen idiot. You are the only person with this hardon for "the only thing that changed was they went from not having modern conveniences to having them." You. No one else.

You are a liar. I did not say that. You lack the intellectual capacity to understand what I did say.

Maybe what you're saying isn't intellectually worth understanding. In fact-- I'm 100% sure of it. And yes, that is what you've said over and over. No harm was done and the only difference is now they don't freeze or live in teepees. Yes. Give or take smallpox, influenza, warfare, relocation and genocide killing about 90% of the population that was here, that's "all that changed."

Your point has been read, understood, and correctly identified as rampant historical revisionism which completely erases the cost in human corpses and turns the brutal subjugation of the Americas into a simple unavoidable event that had a massive side benefit of giving everyone niftie nightlights. That's basically your take on American History 101. Got it.

/Trash can shot.

[JockBoy87]

... lack the intellectual capacity to understand what I did say.

If this isn't classic CEP boilerplate language, I don't know what is.

[GiancarloC]

Wow. I just reported that post, Ben. Personal attacks are not a good thing.

[Benvolio]

Maybe what you're saying isn't intellectually worth understanding. In fact-- I'm 100% sure of it. And yes, that is what you've said over and over. No harm was done and the only difference is now they don't freeze or live in teepees. Yes. Give or take smallpox, influenza, warfare, relocation and genocide killing about 90% of the population that was here, that's "all that changed."

Your point has been read, understood, and correctly identified as rampant historical revisionism which completely erases the cost in human corpses and turns the brutal subjugation of the Americas into a simple unavoidable event that had a massive side benefit of giving everyone niftie nightlights. That's basically your take on American History 101. Got it.

/Trash can shot.

No, you still do not understand. Responding to the complaint that we took their way of life I said that they are better off now than they were before. I was not discussing what happened between then and now.I admitted that they were mistreated an repeatedly said that I am not attemptinhg to justify it.

[xbuzzerx]

No, you still do not understand. Responding to the complaint that we took their way of life I said that they are better off now than they were before. I was not discussing what happened between then and now.I admitted that they were mistreated an repeatedly said that I am not attemptinhg to justify it.

See:

I can say it's as worthless as a member of the Tlingit tribe in Alaska putting a hand on his hip and saying "The Jews are better off since Hitler", and it is.

You're going in circles now.

[Benvolio]

See:



You're going in circles now.

The difference is that the improvement in the NA material condition was brought about by White Americans who are accused of destroying their way of life.

[xbuzzerx]

The difference is that the improvement in the NA material condition was brought about by White Americans who are accused of destroying their way of life.

You list at best a side effect of what was, at times, an openly genocidal expansion. You talk about this as if people came here to give the gifts of technology to the savages. People came to get their hunk of gold and if that came at the cost of landscapes filled with Native corpses that was perfectly fine-- God wanted it, even!

So-- again-- I put your view on this where it belongs. The trash can.

Btw when that girl was kept as a sex slave for like 15 years in an engineer's basement did you point out that she probably had a better life since he made more money than her parents?

[Stardreamer]

Stardreamer let's take Native Americans and let's take .... Japan, which largely "bridged the gap" between premodern and modern internally, with (invited) consultation and partnerships with European powers to help them modernize.

Which one had the more traumatic experience?

Simply saying "west and non-west were going to collide so this was inevitable" so horribly whitewashes the fact that it didn't have to happen the way that it did.

The Japanese islands had not suffered a relatively rapid depopulation of 80 - 90 % of its population to disease in the previous decades. It also had one large fairly common culture not numerous small divided tribes (often at war with each other). Nor was the technological differences as great. Japanese culture though medieval was at the iron age technologically and even then they started assimilating the western culture though they were able to handle and control the assimilation better. The Western powers that contacted Japan were no more or less benevolent than they were when they contacted the Americas. The Japanese were just in a better position technologically and culturally to manage the contact. If the Natives in the Americas were in the same state they too could have managed that contact better.

I don't think if China's military landed in full force and started wiping out American settlements on the west coast, the things that Americans did back would be called "atrocities." Not by an actually objective perspective, anyway.

Virtually every story you can dig up of Natives killing civilians involves civilians illegally breaking treaties and disregarding even the U.S. government's decree that they not squat or homestead over the treaty lines, did it anyway, and they screamed bloody murder for military retaliation against the tribes after a homestead or two gets attacked for illegally breaching the treaty. This story pretty much repeats indefinitely all the way to the west coast.

Also let's not forget that an enormous amount of tribes actually ceded enormous tracts of land completely peacefully, and only once encroached upon what little was left would they resort to violence.

Post-Script: Also let's not forget Stardreamer that this wasn't two different colonial powers meeting in an uninhabited place and duking it out for it. This was one guy's home and the other guy was an invader who felt entitled by religious and racial right to "own" whatever they could take, by any means, and the primary motivation of westward expansion was self-interest in almost every single case. This wasn't Indians showing up in Europe in reprisal and tryin to take land from Europeans. It was Indians fighting to survive.

And if it was the Indians who had developed faster and arrived in Europe to find stone age tribes do you think it would have been any different? There is one common trait in the Human race, the ability to abandon 'humanity' when it is convenient. I'm in the middle of an interesting sci-fi novel at the moment, imagining an alternative world where the Japanese and Mayan empires encountered each other first and joined to become the dominate world power. Europe is the third world in the world that emerged.

[Rolyo85]

The difference is that the improvement in the NA material condition was brought about by White Americans who are accused of destroying their way of life.

Material condition isn't everything. And if they didn't want it, then they didn't need it. They took what they wanted when there was relative peace between the two peoples.

And, let's get this straight - White Americans are not accused of destroying their way of life. They DID destroy their way of life. This is a proven historical fact that nobody with any credibility has ever tried to deny. Whether YOU - as a recent immigrant in White America - think that they then replaced it with a better one, matters not one bit to anyone.

[xbuzzerx]

The Japanese islands had not suffered a relatively rapid depopulation of 80 - 90 % of its population to disease in the previous decades. It also had one large fairly common culture not numerous small divided tribes (often at war with each other). Nor was the technological differences as great. Japanese culture though medieval was at the iron age technologically and even then they started assimilating the western culture though they were able to handle and control the assimilation better. The Western powers that contacted Japan were no more or less benevolent than they were when they contacted the Americas. The Japanese were just in a better position technologically and culturally to manage the contact. If the Natives in the Americas were in the same state they too could have managed that contact better.

So I'm trying to find some way this addresses the part of my post that you quoted other than interpreting this as you saying it was "their fault" that they weren't in a better position to drive back a genocidal onslaught aided by disease?

And if it was the Indians who had developed faster and arrived in Europe to find stone age tribes do you think it would have been any different? There is one common trait in the Human race, the ability to abandon 'humanity' when it is convenient. I'm in the middle of an interesting sci-fi novel at the moment, imagining an alternative world where the Japanese and Mayan empires encountered each other first and joined to become the dominate world power. Europe is the third world in the world that emerged.

I'm sorry-- I find this way of looking at it stupid. No offense. It's like saying "oh well if Jews had controlled Germany you don't think THEY would have put Germans into ovens?" It's pointless conjecture at best and it's historical revisionism to say every horrible act in history would have just been done the other way around if the guy who did it hadn't done it first. It's apologism.

[xbuzzerx]

And, let's get this straight - White Americans are not accused of destroying their way of life. They DID destroy their way of life.

Damn skippy. Amazing how I somehow manage to find the two psychopaths on the net who apparently think the way Native Americans wound up on reservations is somehow up for some totally different historical interpretation.

[Rolyo85]

And if it was the Indians who had developed faster and arrived in Europe to find stone age tribes do you think it would have been any different? There is one common trait in the Human race, the ability to abandon 'humanity' when it is convenient. I'm in the middle of an interesting sci-fi novel at the moment, imagining an alternative world where the Japanese and Mayan empires encountered each other first and joined to become the dominate world power. Europe is the third world in the world that emerged.

I really dislike the "human nature" argument, because it is mostly used to basically exonerate the ones who actually did conquer and destroy other cultures. Yes, history would probably be the same, had the roles been reversed. But in this world, they weren't, and the ones who did obliterate an entire continent's culture and most of its population, were the White Men. Just because it is "human nature", doesn't change that fact.


Also, what book is that? Sounds cool.

[GiancarloC]

Damn skippy. Amazing how I somehow manage to find the two psychopaths on the net who apparently think the way Native Americans wound up on reservations is somehow up for some totally different historical interpretation.

They are both in serious denial about historical fact and cannot come up with any of their own facts to support their arguments. They'll keep going down the path of sugarcoating historical fact and twist it for their own purposes.

[xbuzzerx]

I really dislike the "human nature" argument, because it is mostly used to basically exonerate the ones who actually did conquer and destroy other cultures. Yes, history would probably be the same, had the roles been reversed. But in this world, they weren't, and the ones who did obliterate an entire continent's culture and most of its population, were the White Men. Just because it is "human nature", doesn't change that fact.


Also, what book is that? Sounds cool.

Yup. People who fall back on some "it's universal, all humans from all backgrounds would have done the same thing" overlooks the fact that the whole reason tribes in North America were disjointed and not any one big united imperialist entity similar to kingdoms or nation-states in Europe or elsewhere is precisely because there was no widespread tradition of conquest and subjugation in the sense of an expanding empire. Those existed in Native American history, for sure, but it was BY FAR the exception to the rule and not the norm.

[Stardreamer]

So I'm trying to find some way this addresses the part of my post that you quoted other than interpreting this as you saying it was "their fault" that they weren't in a better position to drive back a genocidal onslaught aided by disease?

Not so much 'it was their fault' as much as they didn't stand a chance.

I'm sorry-- I find this way of looking at it stupid. No offense. It's like saying "oh well if Jews had controlled Germany you don't think THEY would have put Germans into ovens?" It's pointless conjecture at best and it's historical revisionism to say every horrible act in history would have just been done the other way around if the guy who did it hadn't done it first. It's apologism.

It is unrealistic and ignoring the majority of Human history to think otherwise. If you believe biblical history the Jews engaged in quite a bit of genocide in their time.

[Rolyo85]

Actually, the natives' history does kinda disprove your theory. There is a reason why they DIDN'T become a dominant expansive power.

So the book?

[Stardreamer]

Also, what book is that? Sounds cool.

Wasteland of Flint by Thomas Harland.

[Stardreamer]

Actually, the natives' history does kinda disprove your theory. There is a reason why they DIDN'T become a dominant expansive power.

So the book?

Not really, the Amerind cultures were largely not that much different any other culture in the world, some were peaceful enough and some were not. They warred with each other, traded with each other and enslaved each other which ever worked best for them much as all the other Human cultures have done throughout history.

[Rolyo85]

Not really, the Amerind cultures were largely not that much different any other culture in the world, some were peaceful enough and some were not. They warred with each other, traded with each other and enslaved each other which ever worked best for them much as all the other Human cultures have done throughout history.

Except they never tried to expand, or build permanent things.

[Stardreamer]

Except they never tried to expand, or build permanent things.

They built quite a few permanent things and confederacies and empires on the scale they were able to. What ever makes you believe they didn't?

[xbuzzerx]

Not so much 'it was their fault' as much as they didn't stand a chance.

Actually scholars have written at some length about how for the first solid century or so of white colonialism on the east coast... the nearby Natives were in a position to eradicate them at virtually any time.

They didn't. That simply wasn't the way they first-resorted to conflicts and they weren't in a centuries old mindset of exploit, conquer, subjugate, expand.

It is unrealistic and ignoring the majority of Human history to think otherwise. If you believe biblical history the Jews engaged in quite a bit of genocide in their time.

Their history doesn't bear your theory out. Sorry.

[xbuzzerx]

They built quite a few permanent things and confederacies and empires on the scale they were able to. What ever makes you believe they didn't?

There were only two North American "empires" worth mentioning in the entire history of the continent. Confederacies as in loose alliances or affiliations of tribes that sometimes came together for common cause, or the democratic Iroquois Confederacy, were never based on forced membership or coercion.

[JockBoy87]

It is unrealistic and ignoring the majority of Human history to think otherwise.

No argument.

Jews or Germans, it doesn't matter. The capability of committing atrocities is genuinely and universally human.

If you believe biblical history the Jews engaged in quite a bit of genocide in their time.

Book of Joshua. Read all about it.

[Stardreamer]

There were only two North American "empires" worth mentioning in the entire history of the continent. Confederacies as in loose alliances or affiliations of tribes that sometimes came together for common cause, or the democratic Iroquois Confederacy, were never based on forced membership or coercion.

I never intended to imply they were all blood thirsty savages, just that they were Human.

[xbuzzerx]

No argument.

Jews or Germans, it doesn't matter. The capability of committing atrocities is genuinely and universally human.

Okay guys look.

Agreeing that humans are capable of atrocities is something no one has denied and has not been the point of discussion here.

Saying "well it's okay and understandable the history of the American settlement happened the way it did because, well, it would have just happened the other way anyhow had things been different!" is a fundamentally different thing from the first statement. Massively so.

You're going from saying "anyone can do something bad" to "anything bad I do to you-- you would have done it to me, I just did it first."

I'm sorry-- no. That logic doesn't work.

[Rolyo85]

No argument.

Jews or Germans, it doesn't matter. The capability of committing atrocities is genuinely and universally human.



Book of Joshua. Read all about it.

That the human condition allows for developing the urge and capacity to commit atrocities in now way means that all cultures have developed those. One doesn't follow from the other.

[Stardreamer]

Okay guys look.

Agreeing that humans are capable of atrocities is something no one has denied and has not been the point of discussion here.

Saying "well it's okay and understandable the history of the American settlement happened the way it did because, well, it would have just happened the other way anyhow had things been different!" is a fundamentally different thing from the first statement. Massively so.

You're going from saying "anyone can do something bad" to "anything bad I do to you-- you would have done it to me, I just did it first."

I'm sorry-- no. That logic doesn't work.

You building a straw man argument, yes not all the Amerind cultures were warlike, nor were they all peace loving innocents. They weren't Angels or Demons, they were Humans and in the clash of cultures that occurred they were doomed from the start by numbers, technology But most importantly nature. The BIGGEST most significant factor in the downfall of the Amerind cultures was disease, entire tribes and nations died off often before they ever saw a white man. If Columbus and other explorers had done nothing more than shake hands and left never to return, the native populations would still have been largely destroyed.

The European settlers largely arrived to find empty lands and abandoned villages. They didn't arrive with plans on eradicate Native populations, in fact most hoped for support and trade with them. There little evidence of intentional plans of genocide in the history.

That being said though they did look down on the natives as primitives and not equals and conflict was bound to develop particularly when the French and English starting recruiting tribes to fight proxy wars. Those conflicts were bound to go badly for the natives in the end due to all the reasons I highlighted. The American policy towards the native population tended to alternate between various degrees of isolation and assimilation. Neither worked very well, were poorly planned and executed, and numerous atrocities both intentional and unintentional came out of it. But most of those atrocities came of the local conflicts and not part of some larger plan of genocide.

Would the world have been a better place if European nations had not gone through colonial periods? Maybe, maybe not. Either way, explorers and traders would have eventually met up with the Amerind cultures and those cultures would not have survived the encounter intact.

[JockBoy87]

That the human condition allows for developing the urge and capacity to commit atrocities in now way means that all cultures have developed those. One doesn't follow from the other.

I did not make an argument for cultural relativism, next slide please.

Okay guys look.

Agreeing that humans are capable of atrocities is something no one has denied and has not been the point of discussion here.

The point in declaring the distinct difference between nature and culture has to do with where you place blame. You can blame culture, but not nature.

Saying "well it's okay and understandable the history of the American settlement happened the way it did because, well, it would have just happened the other way anyhow had things been different!" is a fundamentally different thing from the first statement. Massively so.

You're going from saying "anyone can do something bad" to "anything bad I do to you-- you would have done it to me, I just did it first."

I'm sorry-- no. That logic doesn't work.

Don't put words in my mouth, and do not conflate "would" with "could."

[xbuzzerx]

The point in declaring the distinct difference between nature and culture has to do with where you place blame. You can blame culture, but not nature.

I wasn't the one who blamed 'human nature.' Human nature came up entirely as a justification on the part of Stardreamer

Don't put words in my mouth, and do not conflate "would" with "could."

I'm not putting words in anyone's mouth. I'm addressing the air of "shrug" and the implication towards inevitability in the last 2 posts from each of you.

Perhaps if you don't want to be misunderstood as attempting to justify it you should rephrase.

[xbuzzerx]

You building a straw man argument, yes not all the Amerind cultures were warlike, nor were they all peace loving innocents. They weren't Angels or Demons, they were Humans and in the clash of cultures that occurred they were doomed from the start by numbers, technology But most importantly nature. The BIGGEST most significant factor in the downfall of the Amerind cultures was disease, entire tribes and nations died off often before they ever saw a white man. If Columbus and other explorers had done nothing more than shake hands and left never to return, the native populations would still have been largely destroyed.

The European settlers largely arrived to find empty lands and abandoned villages. They didn't arrive with plans on eradicate Native populations, in fact most hoped for support and trade with them. There little evidence of intentional plans of genocide in the history.

That being said though they did look down on the natives as primitives and not equals and conflict was bound to develop particularly when the French and English starting recruiting tribes to fight proxy wars. Those conflicts were bound to go badly for the natives in the end due to all the reasons I highlighted. The American policy towards the native population tended to alternate between various degrees of isolation and assimilation. Neither worked very well, were poorly planned and executed, and numerous atrocities both intentional and unintentional came out of it. But most of those atrocities came of the local conflicts and not part of some larger plan of genocide.

Would the world have been a better place if European nations had not gone through colonial periods? Maybe, maybe not. Either way, explorers and traders would have eventually met up with the Amerind cultures and those cultures would not have survived the encounter intact.

This is bullcrap.

Simple variation of the "There were hardly any Indians and they weren't doing anything with the land ANYWAY.." argument that's been around for centuries.

[rareboy]

Since it hasn't penetrated your brain when I said it nicely let me say it not nicely. Listen idiot. You are the only person with this hardon for "the only thing that changed was they went from not having modern conveniences to having them." You. No one else.

You are a liar. I did not say that. You lack the intellectual capacity to understand what I did say.

Before it disappears, I want to highlight that while you can say that someone's opinion may be idiotic....you are not entitled to call them an idiot.

If we were all allowed to express this kind of opinion of one another.....you would come out far the worse for it Benvolio.

Trust me on that.

[Benvolio]

You have it wrong, rareboy. The "listen idiot" was someone else calling me idiot. The paragraph "Since................No one else" is a quote from an earlier post by someone, I forget whom, which has apparently been deleted. It was part of a larger post, and when I trimmed it down it no longer appeared as a quote. He accused me of saying "the only thing that changed.......", but that quote was a complete fabrication. I said neither those words nor that substance.

[Benvolio]

Material condition isn't everything. And if they didn't want it, then they didn't need it. They took what they wanted when there was relative peace between the two peoples.

And, let's get this straight - White Americans are not accused of destroying their way of life. They DID destroy their way of life. This is a proven historical fact that nobody with any credibility has ever tried to deny. Whether YOU - as a recent immigrant in White America - think that they then replaced it with a better one, matters not one bit to anyone.

And whether you think White Americans did something wrong in making a better life available to the Native Americans matters to no one. Most of the destruction was the inevitable result of the immigration of a people with new technologies. The single biggest change to their way of life was the horse. Whites did not impose it upon them. Steel tools were a big change, also not imposed upon them.
Much of the conflict and change resulted from the immigration itself. The xenophobic and racist Native Americans objected to the Whites immigrating to their land.

[Rolyo85]

And whether you think White Americans did something wrong in making a better life available to the Native Americans matters to no one. Most of the destruction was the inevitable result of the immigration of a people with new technologies. The single biggest change to their way of life was the horse. Whites did not impose it upon them. Steel tools were a big change, also not imposed upon them.
Much of the conflict and change resulted from the immigration itself. The xenophobic and racist Native Americans objected to the Whites immigrating to their land.

You're using modern day terms do describe previous era events that have nothing to do with them. "Immigration" implies legally or illegally - but also peacefully - moving from one country to another. There were no countries in North America to move to. This was conquest, not immigration. And White Americans DID something wrong "in making a better life available to the Native Americans" - they eradicated most of them, destroyed their culture and confined them to prison-like camps.

To call Native Americans "xenophobic and racist" is in itself an absurd revisionist xenophobia and racism, and I really hope you finally get banned for good, because this sort of rhetoric is just not in any way ok on any forum where normal people communicate.

[Benvolio]

When Americans object to immigration they get called racist and xenophobic, even in this forum. How was the Native American objection to the white invasion different. Most of the whites came as peaceful immigrants looking for a better life, and believed they were merely defending themselves from wild and unreasonable savages, much as they defended themselves from wild animals. I am not saying they were right, but the notion that they came as conquerors is wrong. They were no different from other immigrants, and present day Native Americans continue to be victims of continuing immigation of people competing for opportunities.

[Rolyo85]

Immigration is not the same as invasion. However the white folks saw their conquering of the North American territory, the end result was extermination and genocide. You can spin that any way you want, won't change that. And immigration is just about the LAST problem NA have today.

[Benvolio]

Lack of economic opportunity is the biggest problem NA have today, and that has been true for generations. It is the direct result of the massive scale of immigrationn of excess workers.

[JockBoy87]

How was the Native American objection to the white invasion different.

It wasn't. Genocidal ideology was prevalent among Americans in the 19th century.

[JockBoy87]

I'm not putting words in anyone's mouth. I'm addressing the air of "shrug" and the implication towards inevitability in the last 2 posts from each of you.

Perhaps if you don't want to be misunderstood as attempting to justify it you should rephrase.

Without education and moral leadership, it is inevitable. There is no shrug. This is just the point to recognize and start from.