Colonialism = Slavery

[palbert]

This raises the serious question... does one read what they write before they post it? Because when I read posts in here I tend to doubt it.

Pat just told us Australians don't read and write. Are you asking of English forced emigres?

[xbuzzerx]

You're building one assumption upon another into a a mountain of fantasy. I'm telling you that they didn't farm in Australia. They were hunter/gatherers.

And I'm telling you that's why they had difficulty adapting to sedentary life in a restricted area.

Reading. The more you know, Pat.

Also, head-asplode, Pat:

[pat grimshaw]

…Reading. The more you know, Pat.…

They didn't read, they didn't write.

[xbuzzerx]

And your point is....?

[palbert]

Pat. You're a racist. Admit it. You'll feel better about yourself as you drink your Nescafe with fresh avocado on bread.

[Benvolio]

He doesn't have a point. He hates non-whites but he is not man enough to say it directly, so he's trying to imply they're inferior.

Benvolio, can I take you away from the US, like say in Ukraine, and lock you up in a farm with all manner of modern day stuff to make your life objectively better than the one you lived in the States, and then I'll beat you if you speak anything but Ukranian, and I will forcefully keep you there. Oh, and we'll get you infected with some flashy new diseases to keep the reenactment authentic. I am sure you'll totes appreciate being torn from everything you knew into this Ever So Much Better situation.

I have not attempted to justify everything in the past. I have disagreed with the claim that the Native Americans were hurt by whites taking their way of life away.

[xbuzzerx]

Pat. You're a racist. Admit it. You'll feel better about yourself as you drink your Nescafe with fresh avocado on bread.

What's most entertaining in a morbid sort of way is everyone knows it but he still tries to evade or deny the implication. It's like when a super duper flamboyant gay guy tries to be in the closet.

Yes, Pat, we totally get that you cannot CONCEIVE of how anyone could see anything good in anything but western, European, modern culture. We get it. You simply have to expand that little nugget of a brain to encompass the notion-- and I know this is a stretch for you-- that not everyone thinks like you do, and not everyone so questionlessly accepts that the culture and society you were born and raised as a privileged member of is superior.

Although I do suspect if these were white-skinned people you'd be quite a bit more sympathetic.

[xbuzzerx]

I have not attempted to justify everything in the past. I have disagreed with the claim that the Native Americans were hurt by whites taking their way of life away.

Well then we're at a complete impasse because that's like saying the holocaust didn't hurt Jews because they have more technology and modern inventions today.

It's a complete disconnect of moral values on a level so deep there is no point in you and I discussing it.

[xbuzzerx]

Read up on history. They were abused and killed by white people. And whites did take their life away. Even to this day many are living on reservations with mediocre conditions at best. That's just a clear denial of historical fact.

Yup you literally have to write off millions of deaths around the planet as utterly nothing-- of 0 negative value-- not worth mentioning-- to make the claim that Benvolio makes.

That's coming from a moral compass so utterly twisted and bent I can't read anything from it and there's no point trying.

[pat grimshaw]

…And whites did take their life away…

Wiki tells me there were thousands more killed in North America than in Australia

[Rolyo85]

I have not attempted to justify everything in the past. I have disagreed with the claim that the Native Americans were hurt by whites taking their way of life away.

Yeah, near extermination doesn't really hurt a culture at all. But you didn't respond to my question - would you be ok with the situation I described? I mean, in MY opinion, you'd be much better than now.

[xbuzzerx]

Wiki tells me there were thousands more killed in North America than in Australia

So if the holocaust killed 5.7 million instead of 6, totally different story right?

[pat grimshaw]

And here we go again with quoting one part of my post without responding to the crux of my argument.…

The crux of that particular post was adolescent bitchiness to a fellow-JUBber.

[Benvolio]

I agree the Native Americans were mistreated in the past. I have not attempted to justify it.

[xbuzzerx]

I agree the Native Americans were mistreated in the past. I have not attempted to justify it.

That's quite a change of tune from "their conquest didn't hurt them."

[pat grimshaw]

So if the holocaust killed 5.7 million instead of 6, totally different story right?

Now that IS a Catholic thing to say! They say that ONE SOUL is vital to their Lord.

[xbuzzerx]

Now that IS a Catholic thing to say! They say that ONE SOUL is vital to their Lord.

Do you speak English, Pat?

You type in it but I'm beginning to seriously question if you can read it.

[palbert]

Now that IS a Catholic thing to say! They say that ONE SOUL is vital to their Lord.

Well Pat it seems you're ready to overlook a lot of souls. Your Lord seems to be missing a lot of vitality.

[pat grimshaw]

^ I believe in democracy; I am not a Catholic.

[xbuzzerx]

^ I believe in democracy; I am not a Catholic.

Why don't you bring up reductio ad absurdum and other one trick pony imitations of your idols you read about. Pseudo intellectualism amuses me.

[xbuzzerx]

Mistreated? Being pushed around is being mistreated... there were atrocities in this country. That's much worse than being "mistreated".

Yup I think on page 1 I brought up the bounties paid for Indian scalps-- with a graduated pricing system based on man, woman or child. Similar to the bounties they offer people for wolf killings in Alaska today.

Not genocide though. These things made them better off.

[pat grimshaw]

…one trick pony imitations of your idols you read about….

Which idols are they? —or perhaps I should ask which are the idols you imagine in your fetid imagination?

[xbuzzerx]

Which idols are they? —or perhaps I should ask which are the idols you imagine in your fetid imagination?

Yes, yes! Let's talk about your idols. George Bernard Shaw for example. Why don't you tell us about him?

[palbert]

^ I believe in democracy; I am not a Catholic.

And that changes the equation how? Their murder/extermination is less significant because it was not done in the Church's name? Do you lose ecclesiastical points. Perhaps a level in the Inferno?

[Benvolio]

That's quite a change of tune from "their conquest didn't hurt them."

I did not say that.

[Rolyo85]

No, but you said they're better off now. Which is not true, and not your judgement to make.

[Benvolio]

No, but you said they're better off now. Which is not true, and not your judgement to make.

It is true and it is not your place to tell Americans what judgments they can express or not.

[xbuzzerx]

It is true and it is not your place to tell Americans what judgments they can express or not.

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.

[Rolyo85]

It is true and it is not your place to tell Americans what judgments they can express or not.

It is, actually, and no they aren't. They have been all but obliterated, their culture intentionally destroyed, their languages eradicated, and their social status is often that of a street bum. Your incredible Americanist arrogance is disgusting.

[Stardreamer]

Intentionally or not, their cultures would have been destroyed anyway. They would NEVER have been able to maintain that lifestyle once the European nations started building deep sea vessels. No matter how benevolently or not the first explorers and settlers might have been once the native tribes encountered the Europeans their culture was largely doomed. Of course the first thing that doomed them was the European diseases developed in the crowded cities of Europe, the indigenous North American populations had no immunities. fully 90% (by some estimates) of the per-Columbus population died off without ever seeing a White Man. Most of the colonies settled on the Eastern US shores didn't have to evict anybody they found empty abandoned villages waiting them.

This die off was just the first half of the death blow to their cultures. The second was the technological difference. Once a culture operating at a stone age level of technology encounters a culture with a significantly higher technological level, they will start assimilating that culture to the detriment of their own. This will occur regardless of which is arguably the 'superior' culture. Scientists have always known when a new previously isolated tribal culture is discovered they are in a race against time to study it before it collapses under the increasing influence of the outside world.

None of this of course excuses or denies the horrible and regrettable treatment of the native peoples but it is a mistake to think that if somehow things had been different those cultures would have survived. They were doomed from the start.

[Rolyo85]

Your last paragraph is the only thing preventing your post from sounding almost monstrous. Because yes, I also believe that their cultures could not survive the White Man one way or another. But with mutual understanding and peace between the two civilizations, they could have adapted and even if the ultimate result was always going to be the present day society, they would have a far different place in it.

[Stardreamer]

Your last paragraph is the only thing preventing your post from sounding almost monstrous. Because yes, I also believe that their cultures could not survive the White Man one way or another. But with mutual understanding and peace between the two civilizations, they could have adapted and even if the ultimate result was always going to be the present day society, they would have a far different place in it.

I agree it might have been possible if both cultures had engaged each other in mutual understanding they could have assimilated into a better culture for us all. It is sad that is so rarely the case in Human affairs.

[pat grimshaw]

What can we do to cleanse ourselves of this horrendous guilt?

[Benvolio]

It is, actually, and no they aren't. They have been all but obliterated, their culture intentionally destroyed, their languages eradicated, and their social status is often that of a street bum. Your incredible Americanist arrogance is disgusting.

Your arrogance in asserting that you have a right to make such judgments, but I do not is more repulsive that you can imagine. You come here for the superior advantages which America offers. And the Native Americans have all those same advantages plus many sources of affirmative action. They have not been eradicated and they retain their cultures and languages. It is absurd to suggest that they would be better sitting in smoke filled teepees in below freezing weather, with no medicine, chewing leather to make clothes, squating in the snow with no toilet paper or soap, living their entire lives without a real bath, with limited food, meat only in winter, stone tools, etc. It may sound romantic, but it was a miserable existence.
If their economic opportunities are limited, we should stop immigration to give them a better chance.

[Stardreamer]

No, I find that absolutely preposterous, Stardreamer. While they were not immune to disease, atrocities did happen. If those atrocities didn't happen more of their culture would have survived. Yes things would have been different if the white man didn't engage in atrocities. There would have been more harmony. It's just a mere deflection from the serious shit that Europeans and later Americans did to the natives. The Europeans were guilty of that horrendous abuse all over the world. From South East Asia to Africa to Latin America.

Oh there is no denying that atrocities happened on both sides, though the shear numbers and advanced technology of the Europeans made the impact of the wrongs they did far more devastating. It is a sad nature of Human affairs that such things happen. But they would have assimilated one way or the other, it would have been better for us all if it the assimilation was free of the atrocities on both sides and we would have a bit more of the flavor of Native American culture in our culture.

[Rolyo85]

Your arrogance in asserting that you have a right to make such judgments, but I do not is more repulsive that you can imagine. You come here for the superior advantages which America offers. And the Native Americans have all those same advantages plus many sources of affirmative action. They have not been eradicated and they retain their cultures and languages. It is absurd to suggest that they would be better sitting in smoke filled teepees in below freezing weather, with no medicine, chewing leather to make clothes, squating in the snow with no toilet paper or soap, living their entire lives without a real bath, with limited food, meat only in winter, stone tools, etc. It may sound romantic, but it was a miserable existence.
If their economic opportunities are limited, we should stop immigration to give them a better chance.

They wouldn't be better sitting in bla bla bla, because in 2012 they wouldn't be doing that regardless of what the White Man did. Except, we would be discussing the possibility of a Native American president now, instead of thinking of them as only good to pose on casino signs.

And please, please stop flattering yourself. I have personal reasons to choose America, but in fact in professional and academic terms, half of Western Europe today offers me much better "superior advantages" than the US. And btw, the decline of quality is due to YOU personally, and the uninformed xenophobic bigots supporting your party of hate.

- - - Updated - - -

What can we do to cleanse ourselves of this horrendous guilt?

Admitting it would be a good start, and passing some more serious laws to help those people whose land you stole and whose culture you destroyed.

[xbuzzerx]

Intentionally or not, their cultures would have been destroyed anyway. They would NEVER have been able to maintain that lifestyle once the European nations started building deep sea vessels. No matter how benevolently or not the first explorers and settlers might have been once the native tribes encountered the Europeans their culture was largely doomed. Of course the first thing that doomed them was the European diseases developed in the crowded cities of Europe, the indigenous North American populations had no immunities. fully 90% (by some estimates) of the per-Columbus population died off without ever seeing a White Man. Most of the colonies settled on the Eastern US shores didn't have to evict anybody they found empty abandoned villages waiting them.

This die off was just the first half of the death blow to their cultures. The second was the technological difference. Once a culture operating at a stone age level of technology encounters a culture with a significantly higher technological level, they will start assimilating that culture to the detriment of their own. This will occur regardless of which is arguably the 'superior' culture. Scientists have always known when a new previously isolated tribal culture is discovered they are in a race against time to study it before it collapses under the increasing influence of the outside world.

None of this of course excuses or denies the horrible and regrettable treatment of the native peoples but it is a mistake to think that if somehow things had been different those cultures would have survived. They were doomed from the start.

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.

What can we do to cleanse ourselves of this horrendous guilt?

You don't have any. You could start by stopping your trolling and get out.

Your arrogance in asserting that you have a right to make such judgments, but I do not is more repulsive that you can imagine. You come here for the superior advantages which America offers. And the Native Americans have all those same advantages plus many sources of affirmative action. They have not been eradicated and they retain their cultures and languages. It is absurd to suggest that they would be better sitting in smoke filled teepees in below freezing weather, with no medicine, chewing leather to make clothes, squating in the snow with no toilet paper or soap, living their entire lives without a real bath, with limited food, meat only in winter, stone tools, etc. It may sound romantic, but it was a miserable existence.
If their economic opportunities are limited, we should stop immigration to give them a better chance.

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. The rest of us in the reality based community acknowledge that many cultures around the world made this transition on their own terms or while keeping their societies relatively intact (see: Japan) and a genocidal landgrab against them almost to the point of extinction was not necessary to bring about this change.

Oh there is no denying that atrocities happened on both sides, though the shear numbers and advanced technology of the Europeans made the impact of the wrongs they did far more devastating. It is a sad nature of Human affairs that such things happen. But they would have assimilated one way or the other, it would have been better for us all if it the assimilation was free of the atrocities on both sides and we would have a bit more of the flavor of Native American culture in our culture.

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.

[Benvolio]

[QUOTE=Rolyo85;8654521]They wouldn't be better sitting in bla bla bla, because in 2012 they wouldn't be doing that regardless of what the White Man did.
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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.