Colonialism

[CreedIsChrist]

Such willful ignorance. read the Wiki article you cite and come back after you have figured out how the practive of scalping was introduced to the Indians.

"According to ethnohistorian James Axtell, there is abundant evidence that the Native American practice of scalping existed long before Europeans arrived. Axtell argues that there is no evidence that the early European explorers and settlers who came to the Americas were familiar with the ancient European practice of scalping, or that they ever taught scalping to Native Americans. Axtell writes that the idea that Europeans taught scalping to Native Americans became popular recently, during the 1960s. This idea quickly became conventional wisdom because it fit the tenor of the times of the counter-cultural 1960s, writes Axtell, but he argues that archaeological, historical, pictorial, and linguistic evidence contradicts this notion. Certain tribes of Native Americans practiced scalping, in some instances up until the 19th century"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalping

 

[Kharak]

Wrong. Colonialism happens due to the ambitions of the people and the wanting to expand their empire. The small tribes has no buisnsess attacking innocent settlers who were in search of a new better life. Also you don't call someone a savage for no reason.

Aside from taking their land and forcing them to live on reservations? Oh yeah, and re-educating them, destroying their language and playing tribal alliances against eachother before discarding treaties and conducting punitive raid on native settlements. Yes, Westerners is so mature.

There has to be a big reason to call someone or a group savages. In south America the reason why the Mayans were called savages was because of their sacrifice of their own children and the gruesome 'celebrations' that they had while removing the hearts from their own people and commiting cannibalism. Any civilized person would obviously see the savagry commited.

I'm pretty sure you mean the Aztecs: The Mayans weren't around for that (having all sort of, you know, abandoned their cities). Regardless, the sacrifice was primarily of Aztec won prisoners or willing members of society. Despite the horror of the entire thing, many thought that they could not ascend to heaven unless they died a suitably bloody death (and this is not a wholly unique belief). Needless to say, the Celts also developed a form of human sacrifice in Europe during the Iron Age, and the Lithuanians began increasing their own number of human sacrifices with the events of the Prussian Crusades. Not to say the Teutons didn't have it coming. They could've at least met quota.

The whole argument that Aztecs were barbaric is childish in any respect though. Their whole doctrine of warfare was based on capture: Europeans simply killed outright. Given the choice, I believe a slow stab to the chest is preferable (and perhaps more humane) than a slow bleeding wound from a sword, gunshot wound or barbed arrow. Despite what movies may have you believe, it can take a long time to die from bleeding out from anything less than a bullet straight through the brain case. Here's a hint: Looking at your entrails for an hour in the heat of battle while stuck underneath another guy is not fun.

Opium? Opium was grown in East Asia and Turkey for their own profit and pleasure. Later it was used for painkillers like morphine. The native Americans had nothing to do with Opium. Where did you get that? You must be talking about tobacco.

The Chinese . . . The British forced the Chinese to purchase it from India and eventually addicted a good number of the population despite repeated attempts and wars to wipe the drug from the sight of the Middle Kingdom. Loosing the war sort of force the Chinese to submit to British, French and American merchants though.

Meanwhile, opium remained illegal in England.

 

[Verv]

Let's be realistic...

Colonial Europeans did not want to commit genocide; they wanted to turn the natives into Christians and to take all of the economically beneficial things that they could.

I vote: fair enough.

In exchange, they taught them new technologies, taught them methods of writing down their language, in some cases freed them from other forms of oppression (Tibet, the Aztec tribes).

It would take someone who has little perspective of the lives that natives had to call this really a bad thing.

Colonialism was the greatest thing for human rights and free thought ever.

 

[Kharak]

Let's be realistic...

Colonial Europeans did not want to commit genocide; they wanted to turn the natives into Christians and to take all of the economically beneficial things that they could.

I vote: fair enough.

Such reasoning is . . . flawed. The same rationalizations have been applied to black slaver: They needed to be enslaved.

In exchange, they taught them new technologies, taught them methods of writing down their language, in some cases freed them from other forms of oppression (Tibet, the Aztec tribes).

Technologies can be better gained from trade and mutually beneficial partnerships. Though the Conquistadors introduced guns in the New World, the masses of dead natives never had the infrastructure to actually use them. Meanwhile, the Japanese develop a very unique firearms industry regardless to 'conquest'. No colonialism required. Of course, you are also making a very big assumptions on what exactly the benefits of written language may or may have not entailed for cultures that had no need of them (for one who is supposed to adhere to utilitarianism, you are not very utilitarian).

Notwithstanding the fact that the Mayans had a very well thought out numeral system, and that I have already touched the "civilizing" the Aztecs as a childish joke. That their planned capital city was larger than most European cities spits in the face of people all too willing to claim they were nothing more than primitive savages. Aside from obvious implications of agrarian surplus, the Aztecs were hardly the biggest antagonizer of wars and religious atrocity. Europeans, after all, would engage in the Thirty Years War in all due time (and this war is where the word "sack" originates in the context of pillaging). The only true 'freedom' that the Spainards gave the Mesoamericans was the freedom to die sooner rather than later with guns or disease. Do remember that slave labor was introduced into the western hemisphere as a means to replace the dead natives after pox had wiped the unlucky cultures off the face of the planet.

Colonialism was the greatest thing for human rights and free thought ever.

Only for the invaders. You're lip service to North American colonialism in particular is morally disgusting. While you sit here and argue about the 'glorious' material benefits that Europeans gave the natives, North American reservations are still choc full of drugs and poverty. Strife still tears apart the world and a sixth of the world population lives in shantytowns where they can't drink clean water, must walk barefoot on garbage strewn roads and live painfully short lives.

The colonial dream is only great if you are blind enough to believe that the billions living in poverty and suffering increasingly poor standards of life somehow benefit from "technologies" they will never see and "languages" they could not even write.

 

[Penumbra]

Good and bad. I can accept that.

However, wasn't the end good?

Good for whom?

Take the United States for example. There are only a couple million Native Americans left on the continent, they've lost almost all of their land and were pretty much culture-raped. Most of the modern population is from other parts of the world, with the majority being European.

So yeah, it was great for the Europeans....

 

[Verv]

Well, actually, Kharak, you are right: they needed to be enslaved.

Slavery and indentured servitude in some form of another were absolutely vital to the economic system. Otherwise, the profitable production of cotton would have been nearly impossible until the advent of the cotton gin.

Third, the Aztecs were then quite a fit empire, I guess... And then they got smashed.

They oppressed and repressed countless other societies within theirs -- why do you oppose their annihilation?

It would have been like the Aztecs going over to destroy the Spanish -- who do you really cheer for when two imperialistic powers fight?

But you are wrong... They were morally and ethically backwards, practicing human sacrifice to nonexistent gods, and they were technologically in the stone age (making weapons of obsidian).

Last, native Americans are offered countless scholarships and some receive restitution money in order to better themselves.

If they cannot do it now, it's on them.

And...

I do know that all of Asia has benefited exponentially from updated world views, new technologies and trade.

Colonialism was just like globalization -- it's just that now these other nations have developed enough economy to parlay on equal grounds.

Slavery was necessary and it hitherto has not been immoral. Slavery was a reasonable system that appeared in all societies.

Second, the native Americans did not possess the right technology to make the things they were on top of profitable. How are we supposed to trade with people who do not even know what they should give us and will sell their land for beeds?

 

[Verv]

Good for whom?

Take the United States for example. There are only a couple million Native Americans left on the continent, they've lost almost all of their land and were pretty much culture-raped. Most of the modern population is from other parts of the world, with the majority being European.

So yeah, it was great for the Europeans....

They mostly died to disease after first contact, not in concentrated effort.

They were culture-raped? That was probably a good thing -- are you aware of the treatment of women that existed amongst Plains Indians? The genocides the Northeastern tribes put each other through? The racial and ethnic massacres between the Utes and the Arapaho?

The cannibalism of other tribes?

I think in this case it was best that a lot was given up.

Pretending that they were a bunch of Utopian hippies is inaccurate.

They were humans, and as all undeveloped societies, they were often very aggressive.

Europe was the same as the Native Americans for a long time -- in fact, a mere 5-600 years before first contact the Norwegians and Swedes were living lives not unlike that of native Americans only differentiated by the presence of iron.

 

[Penumbra]

They mostly died to disease after first contact, not in concentrated effort.

That much is true, but still millions were murdered.

They were culture-raped? That was probably a good thing -- are you aware of the treatment of women that existed amongst Plains Indians? The genocides the Northeastern tribes put each other through? The racial and ethnic massacres between the Utes and the Arapaho?

The cannibalism of other tribes?

I think in this case it was best that a lot was given up.

Pretending that they were a bunch of Utopian hippies is inaccurate.

They were humans, and as all undeveloped societies, they were often very aggressive.

Europe was the same as the Native Americans for a long time -- in fact, a mere 5-600 years before first contact the Norwegians and Swedes were living lives not unlike that of native Americans only differentiated by the presence of iron.

There's a difference between pretending natives were utopian hippies and saying that enslavement, genocide, culture-rape, and land-stealing were terrible things to do.

You're right in saying that parts of Europe were like that not too long ago, which makes me wonder why you'd advocate the forced rush of progress on a group of people, mainly by having them die.

Speaking of pretending, let's not pretend that the Europeans main goal was to help these people and fight what they saw as immoral. They were selfish and exploitative, and their greed resulted in tens of millions of deaths. They wanted land and resources, and cut down groups of people like they cut down trees to get it. But no, they're not the savage ones.

 

[Ryal Kane]

The outlooks on this thread to be seem something of a false dichotomy.

Colonisation has a terrible history of abuses ot native people.
At the same time it's naive to think that all native societies are somehow peaceful and in touch with nature.

Colonists have brought advances but all to often the negatives outweigh the benfits.
Treatment of Australian Aboriginee still has a devastating affect on them.
If explorers were more concerned about actually helping people in Afrcia rather than their resources, manpower and religions, the continent might not be in the state it is today.

In an ideal world, people would introduce knowledge and ideas to different societies rather than force them. But the sad truth of human nature is that exploration was less about meeting others and more about gathering resources.

 

[tanzanos]

Oh wonderful, another Godwin..


no offense, but you belong in a 3rd world country with no electricity, I wanna see how long you'd last before you came groping back(that is, if you lived to come back). Slave trade was going on for thousands of years before the holocaust, read a history book!

Greece a 3rd world country??????

Just to let you know I was born in Tanzania and lived on a Farm. I can survive eating grubs and other things that would make you cringe. I am very familiar with living without electricity and actually miss the simple life we lived.

Now what has that to do with Technology vs civilised behaviour???????? I know that most Americans cannot even place their country on the map but this is no excuse to condone slavery, the holocaust, spending BILLIONS on research specifically aimed at finding better ways to MURDER humans! Instead of spending money on beneficial technology. I am all for NASA, etc. Going to the moon was one of man's greatest achievements. Conducting wars, and slavery, is man's greatest failures.

Your lack of a civilised historical heritage renders you in want of a replacement and that replacement is technology. Well I have news for you; You can dress a barbarian in a suit with tie but underneath he will still be a barbarian. You may have gone to the moon but your country is responsible for more deaths as a result of its foreign policy (21st century) than all the other countries put together. So before you preach to me your abhorrent principles; remember what Jesus tried to teach you! A little humility will go a long way; an apology to the victims of your pro colonialism is the least you owe to the Native Americans and all the victims of your countries foreign policies!

Now we took care of the NAZIS in the past and we shall do it again if need be, so don't keep your hopes up too much.

 

[Verv]

The outlooks on this thread to be seem something of a false dichotomy.

Colonisation has a terrible history of abuses ot native people.
At the same time it's naive to think that all native societies are somehow peaceful and in touch with nature.

Colonists have brought advances but all to often the negatives outweigh the benfits.
Treatment of Australian Aboriginee still has a devastating affect on them.
If explorers were more concerned about actually helping people in Afrcia rather than their resources, manpower and religions, the continent might not be in the state it is today.

In an ideal world, people would introduce knowledge and ideas to different societies rather than force them. But the sad truth of human nature is that exploration was less about meeting others and more about gathering resources.

Question: how many generations were the negative? A few.

How many are the positive? Eternal.

Furthermore, the fate of these people could just have easily been identical.

What nation has never been conquered? what society has never changed? Even the Chinese were once conquered by the Mongols.

Everyone is subject to subjugation -- it's the way of the world.

It's also how the world gets cleaned.

War is a hygiene -- by massacring old governments and old societies, progress is made forward, technologically and socially.

That much is true, but still millions were murdered.

Millions who would have gladly murdered us if the tables were turned; millions who would perhaps have murdered each other as well.

There's a difference between pretending natives were utopian hippies and saying that enslavement, genocide, culture-rape, and land-stealing were terrible things to do.

You're right in saying that parts of Europe were like that not too long ago, which makes me wonder why you'd advocate the forced rush of progress on a group of people, mainly by having them die.

Speaking of pretending, let's not pretend that the Europeans main goal was to help these people and fight what they saw as immoral. They were selfish and exploitative, and their greed resulted in tens of millions of deaths. They wanted land and resources, and cut down groups of people like they cut down trees to get it. But no, they're not the savage ones.

Society operates out of the collective interest of the society -- sometimes there are altruistic elements, and there was: many had the interest in making the others Christians and productive members of society.

Mixed with that comes death -- obviously, if you are going to fight over your piece of land, be ready to die for it.

Invasions happen because new lands were sought out -- the cycle of stagnation was broken.

It's something easy to understand and come to grips with.

You can read what I wrote about war above...

Plus, we bump any nation up hundreds upon hundreds of years into the future by taking them out.

The Natives of America are not the best example as they were slaughtered en masse by disease -- but look at India, parts of China, etc.

In the end they benefited.

One can even make an argument that the Koreans benefited from Japanese occupation.

 

[peadar1987]

The end does not justify the means. You could say that the 70 years of Communist Dictatorship in Russia were justified, as ultimately they got rid of the Tsar, and replaced him with a modern democracy. That doesn't mean that Stalinist Russia wasn't an evil society the world could have done without, and that it wouldn't have been better to have had a revolution straight to democracy.

 

[Verv]

The end does not justify the means. You could say that the 70 years of Communist Dictatorship in Russia were justified, as ultimately they got rid of the Tsar, and replaced him with a modern democracy. That doesn't mean that Stalinist Russia wasn't an evil society the world could have done without, and that it wouldn't have been better to have had a revolution straight to democracy.

Why didn't the Europeans have the right to put the land to greater use than the Natives?

A lot of land was not being fully used -- it makes sense that the Europeans, who knew how to get more out of the land, would be able to come in and use that land.

And for the most part, viewing the way things were at the time, it also makes sense that they would violently fight for it.

I do not think we can view 17th century colonial politics through the same way we view modern politics.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Why didn't the Europeans have the right to put the land to greater use than the Natives?

Why don't I have the right to put your property to "greater" use than you do? Wait, let me just gather my team of elite troopers and find out.

A lot of land was not being fully used -- it makes sense that the Europeans, who knew how to get more out of the land, would be able to come in and use that land.

"Devastation" is more like it. Europeans have not managed to develop a sustainable way of using resources to this day. The only reason why the Western economies haven't collapsed yet is because they've been able to virtually "export" the consequences of their exploitation so far.

 

[tanzanos]

Why didn't the Europeans have the right to put the land to greater use than the Natives?

A lot of land was not being fully used -- it makes sense that the Europeans, who knew how to get more out of the land, would be able to come in and use that land.

And for the most part, viewing the way things were at the time, it also makes sense that they would violently fight for it.

I do not think we can view 17th century colonial politics through the same way we view modern politics.

I am putting Alaska up for colonisation to the highest bidder (e-bay) I am sure the Chinese will like to fully USE the natural resources of that little used State. The price is set at 1,000,000 Yuan. Any takers?

 

[Kharak]

Slavery and indentured servitude in some form of another were absolutely vital to the economic system. Otherwise, the profitable production of cotton would have been nearly impossible until the advent of the cotton gin.

Aha, didn't the founder of economics, Adam Smith, demonstrate that slavery was economically untenable? Nevermind the moral implications, unless someone here thinks there is a market for child prostitution to make money with. It was not needed, it was a convenience and a fool's convenience at that.

Your promotion of the cotton gin also illustrates a very poor knowledge of its eventual effect: The cotton gin actually increased the 'want' for slavery in its effected region as demand increased. 1793 did not herald the end of slavery. Had it not been invented, I imagine the yeomanry of the South would've been more pressed to usurp the plantation systems that were institutionalizing slavery.

They oppressed and repressed countless other societies within theirs -- why do you oppose their annihilation?

The Spainards replacing them were no better, and they went on to annihilate anything regardless of its actual culture. Lest we forget the Incans in South America.

It would have been like the Aztecs going over to destroy the Spanish -- who do you really cheer for when two imperialistic powers fight?

I didn't say such a thing, did I? If you will concentrate on what is happening and has factually happened, it would be far preferable than your tendency to make up history as you go along. This is not the first thread in which you have mutilated the past to suit your present needs, and I should then justly expect you to take another poster's material out of context. Ag

But you are wrong... They were morally and ethically backwards, practicing human sacrifice to nonexistent gods, and they were technologically in the stone age (making weapons of obsidian).

Technologically inferior? Their understanding of agriculture and astronomy exceeded that of their European conterparts. Tenochtitlan was (again) larger than most European cities, and much of Aztec architecture within was an impressive extention of Mesoamerican engineering. But did I not just mention the Thirty Years War? Ritualized sacrifice is, in the end, no bloodier than willful rape and pillage of Madgeburg or the surrounding countryside; among other atrocities that populate Western civilization. To say that the violence minded Europeans were 'ethically' and 'morally' superior is a sick and disgusting proposition when there were many peasants who ended up begging for death once the day came to a close.

Last, native Americans are offered countless scholarships and some receive restitution money in order to better themselves.

And this is compensation for a good deal of people who have difficulty getting out of High School? Throwing around scholarships does not make things better; sort of like how throwing around money doesn't really fix things. It's a nice way to sweep things under the rug.

If they cannot do it now, it's on them.

Sort of like how it was up to Africans to avoid forced sharecropping? Oh wait...

I do know that all of Asia has benefited exponentially from updated world views, new technologies and trade.

Meanwhile, ask everybody about how they thought of Japanese colonialism.
y on equal grounds.

Slavery was necessary and it hitherto has not been immoral. Slavery was a reasonable system that appeared in all societies.

Uh, no. I fail to see how essentially ensnaring and prostituting people is moral or necessary. Wait, were you aware that sexual abuse was common with slaves and their masters? Ah, but it was necessary for exercising that frustration, of course. Nevermind that all those people could've been free and making money and living more secure lives, but we have jmerville's distorted understanding of reality to live on.

 

[CreedIsChrist]

Good for whom?

Take the United States for example. There are only a couple million Native Americans left on the continent, they've lost almost all of their land and were pretty much culture-raped. Most of the modern population is from other parts of the world, with the majority being European.

So yeah, it was great for the Europeans....

No, its was great for everyone, finally democracy and a civilized government could govern the areas. America is the land of opportunity and conquest. The Indians were a very sparse population of America and in no way could populate the whole continent.

The fact is, is that many of the Native Americans were very aggressive and did not take kindly to new visitors. Some native Americans however welcomed the settlers and viewed it as new opportunities for them. Many of the Indians took very kindly to the technology the settlers brought.

However the problem is that many of the tribes were still very primitive and violent. They made it absolute hell for the settlers who simply were there to live a new life and build. When settlers started seeing their own people with their hearts ripped out or their scalps cut out was when they started viewing the native Americans as savages. And in reality, they were most of the time.

The reservations today exist as a sign of this animosity toward a better life and a free progressive nation. The high crime rate and alcoholism on many reservations today still shows us this same problem of violence that existed over a 100 years ago.

I myself love America. And I think anyone who degrades our founding fathers are a ungratefull disgrace and don't deserve to live here. The land of the free exists today because of the blood these people shed carving out this land for us. You are able to live free without oppression because of them.

 

[Joachim]

No, its was great for everyone, finally democracy and a civilized government could govern the areas. America is the land of opportunity and conquest. The Indians were a very sparse population of America and in no way could populate the whole continent.

The fact is, is that many of the Native Americans were very aggressive and did not take kindly to new visitors. Some native Americans however welcomed the settlers and viewed it as new opportunities for them. Many of the Indians took very kindly to the technology the settlers brought.

However the problem is that many of the tribes were still very primitive and violent. They made it absolute hell for the settlers who simply were there to live a new life and build. When settlers started seeing their own people with their hearts ripped out or their scalps cut out was when they started viewing the native Americans as savages. And in reality, they were most of the time.

The reservations today exist as a sign of this animosity toward a better life and a free progressive nation. The high crime rate and alcoholism on many reservations today still shows us this same problem of violence that existed over a 100 years ago.

I myself love America. And I think anyone who degrades our founding fathers are a ungratefull disgrace and don't deserve to live here. The land of the free exists today because of the blood these people shed carving out this land for us. You are able to live free without oppression because of them.

How about those of us who degrade Abraham Lincoln?

 

[Penumbra]

No, its was great for everyone, finally democracy and a civilized government could govern the areas. America is the land of opportunity and conquest. The Indians were a very sparse population of America and in no way could populate the whole continent.

The fact is, is that many of the Native Americans were very aggressive and did not take kindly to new visitors. Some native Americans however welcomed the settlers and viewed it as new opportunities for them. Many of the Indians took very kindly to the technology the settlers brought.

However the problem is that many of the tribes were still very primitive and violent. They made it absolute hell for the settlers who simply were there to live a new life and build. When settlers started seeing their own people with their hearts ripped out or their scalps cut out was when they started viewing the native Americans as savages. And in reality, they were most of the time.

The reservations today exist as a sign of this animosity toward a better life and a free progressive nation. The high crime rate and alcoholism on many reservations today still shows us this same problem of violence that existed over a 100 years ago.

I don't see how you can say it's great for everyone, when most of the original race is dead. It can't be good for them if they and most of their descendants are dead. And, as you pointed out, many of the remainders are on reservations in poverty with alcohol abuse.

"Sparsely populated" is not quite accurate. It was sparse compared to today, but estimates range from 10 million to tens of millions of natives, and now only a couple million live in North America.

You point out that some of them were aggressive towards Europeans when they got here, but if we look down the time line, the European colonies expanded and expanded until they owned all land from coast to coast, so their fears came true.

I myself love America. And I think anyone who degrades our founding fathers are a ungratefull disgrace and don't deserve to live here. The land of the free exists today because of the blood these people shed carving out this land for us. You are able to live free without oppression because of them.

I see a lot of people talking about the founding fathers like they are a pantheon of gods, as though any criticism of them is blasphemy. Sorry, they're not my gods. Many of them were geniuses and they developed a very progressive type of government for their day but they were not without mistakes, because nobody is.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Fact: the United States broke every single treaty with the American natives, regardless of whether they were hostile or not.

Fact: the United States drove the American natives from their ancestral lands, often in death marches, and confined them to barren wastelands.

Fact: the United States deliberately decimated the Bison to the point of extinction, following the line of reasoning: "One dead buffalo means ten dead redskins".

Fact: It didn't matter whether the American natives were friendly or hostile. In every single case, they were subjugated, robbed of their land, forbidden to practice their own culture and/or forbidden to speak their own language.