America VS Native Tribes: Justifiable Conquest, Ruthless Genocide, Typical War, Other?

[ladsin]

Justifiable Conquest

Ruthless Genocide

Typical War

Other

[WhitePanther88]

It was Justifiable Conquest ( as justifiable as any conquest), Ruthless Genocide and Typical War. Basically it was no different than anything that had gone on elsewhere in the world before of since. It's hard today to think of a country that wasn't conquered through "Justifiable" Conquest and Ruthless Genocide andTypical War. England was conquered by the Romans then by the Saxons, then by the Vikings and then by the Normans.
France was conquered by the Romans, then by the vandals, then by the Goths, then by the franks.
Italy was conquered by the Romans, then by the vandals, then by the Goths, then by the Lombards and then by Byzantines and then by the Frank's.
Spain was conquered by the Romans taking it from the Iberian, Celts, Greeks and carthagianians. Then the vandals came, then the Goths and then the Muslims conquered it and then the spainish reconsidered it.
The native Americans fought each other endlessly. For instance in the black hills of South Dakota Arikara arrived in AD 1500, and then were conquered by the Cheyenne, they were pushed out by the Crow, they were pushed out by the Kiowa and then they by Pawnee until The Lakota pushed them out on 1776 and the US goverment took it from them in 1889. The spread of old world diseases brought from Europe killed a hell of a lot more native Americans than bullets ever did, how else could you explain how the spainish with 600 soldiers, 15 horsemen and 15 cannons was able to defeat the Aztecs who vastly outnumbered them with some the best warriors in history.
South and central America too had large powerful civilisations that spent their time waring and conquering.
I really don't see a difference between what the US goverment did and any other nation in the history of the world except that the US goverment was much more successful than most though the millions of native Americans dying from the bubonic plague, chickenpox, cholera, diphtheria, influenza, leprosy, malaria, measles, pertussis, scarlet fever, smallpox, typhoid fever, typhus, yaws and yellow fever. Next time some anti vaxer starts bumming on vacations remind him of what happens to the native Americans.

[BlueCoyote]

I don't know how anyone could not possibly see this as a ruthless genocide.
Europeans used to be frighteningly good at this kind of thing.

[nalaa]

First of all, should be call it "The United Kingdom VS Native Tribes"
English people landed on new land and decided to kill the indigenous people. And the result of that is America

Anyway. Yes Genocide. By every definition of the term.
BUT... and this might an unpopular opinion but it's somewhat a normal development in history.
Before native Americans christian Europe fought to rid themselves of pagan tribes. And before that the roman empire conquered most of Europe and the middle east. And what have the Romans ever given us right?
And looking at the American continent before they were defeated by the Spanish, the Mayans terrorized the continent by enslaving and sacrificing surrounding tribes.

[Jonny317]

It didn't stop in 1776. It kept going until the end of teh 19th century, under the name of the American government.

[jacquesvol]

And in California too it was a genocide: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Genocide

[jacquesvol]

@nalaa religious texts tell to kill those who aren't "good Christians. Cathars in France were exterminated too. Protestants and Jews were persecuted.

[nalaa]

@jacquesvol well the point was more when technological advanced cultures meet more primitive ones, it rarely ends for the latter.

religious prosecutions normally happen to religions within one civilization, such as the holocaust.

When I talked about christian Europe, I was thinking more of the saxon wars

[jacquesvol]

Colonists had no moral problem killing pagans, anywhere in history or in the world. And they invaded countries under reliigious excuses. It was pagan , thus not civilized and up for grabbing..

[ManFrom1982]

@jacquesvol yeah, and the Comanches had no moral problem raiding and killing anyone in their vicinity or using rape and torture as weapons of intimidation an fear. Let's not start ascribing the moral high ground to or condemning entire groups of quite diverse people just because they share the same skin color, whether it's white or red.

[jacquesvol]

@ManFrom1982 Christians killed pagans of all colors, white included

[ManFrom1982]

@jacquesvol Okay. Would you make the claim that pagans didn't kill Christians? Because the Vikings come to mind.

This is a HUMAN behavior throughout history is my point. There's literally no large classification of human that has a shred of superiority on these grounds.

[jacquesvol]

@ManFrom1982 Those Wikings converted later

[ManFrom1982]

@jacquesvol... Lol okay, I have to give you props. Trolling level: Expert. WP, sir. WP.

[Qwerty_0]

Natural behaviour. Animals fight for territory all the time, we are, or at least were, no different. That's not meant as a justification by the way.

[Jonny317]

That's why we live in civilization. If it's natural, how often do you do it?

[Qwerty_0]

@Jonny317 I don't do it because I wasn't born during the "war era" of human civilisation, because I'm not a soldier and don't want to be, and because I'm a woman which during that period, would probably hurt my chances of joining the military as anything more than a nurse.

[ManFrom1982]

@Qwerty_0 right on. The tribes were fighting each other for territory long before Europeans showed up, after all.

I'm not excusing some of the brutality (like what happened to the Cherokee nation), but even there, you need to also acknowledge that that wasn't restricted to the white people side of this whole discussion. If you claim that, you don't know much about the Comanches.

[madhatters4]

any suggestion that it wasn't ruthless or genocide would be a huge insult and an absolute disregard of the facts.

[RolandCuthbert]

Several accounts of cruelty and murder include Spaniards testing the sharpness of blades on Native people by cutting them in half, beheading them in contests and throwing Natives into vats of boiling soap. There are also accounts of suckling infants being lifted from their mother’s breasts by Spaniards, only to be dashed headfirst into large rocks.

Bartolome De Las Casas, a former slave owner who became Bishop of Chiapas, described these exploits. “Such inhumanities and barbarisms were committed in my sight as no age can parallel,” he wrote. “My eyes have seen these acts so foreign to human nature that now I tremble as I write.”

In the early years of Columbus’ conquests there were butcher shops throughout the Caribbean where Indian bodies were sold as dog food. There was also a practice known as the montería infernal, the infernal chase, or manhunt, in which Indians were hunted by war-dogs.

These dogs—who also wore armor and had been fed human flesh, were a fierce match for the Indians. Live babies were also fed to these war dogs as sport, sometimes in front of horrified parents.

[Bananaman177]

The Indians were killing and raping and raiding each other for centuries before Europeans came to the New World.

The Noble Savage myth is just that, a myth. They weren't living in balance with nature, they had already hunted the buffalo to near extinction themselves before white hunters came and finished the job in just a few short years. The buffaloes would have been gone in a few more years anyway, whites just sped the process up.

[Benedek38]

Did the natives fight back?
Yes.
Did they commit attrocities, too?
Yes.
Was there a moral framework to regulate war, based in which we could pinpoint warcrimes?
No.

Was it a brutal mess?
Definitely.
But ultimately, it was just a war, and anyone saying otherwise is a hypocrite.

[NYCQuestions1976]

Native Americans first started dying off when the Vikings arrived before the year 1000. Even though the few Vikings that arrived either died or off or left, the diseases they brought their not. The diseases continued to permeate the continent for the next five hundred years until Columbus showed up in 1492 and the Dutch, French, Portuguese, Spanish, and English showed up after that in the 1500s and 1600s. This "second wave" of Europeans with their diseases was eventually the final nail in the coffin. The reduction in Native American population from the year 1000 to 1600 is a major reason why Europeans (and eventually Americans) from 1600 and on were able to transverse the continent so relatively quickly and easily.

[englisc]

It was a war. People act like the Natives were innocent, peace loving people and that the evil asshole white Americans came over and stole their land. In reality before white Americans got there Native American tribes warred with each other over land, they'd scalp each other, they'd take prisoners, and there's evidence to suggest that sometimes they ate their enemies. Some of them even owned slaves. They were just as if not more brutal than the white Americans, they just lost the war.

[SkyKing89]

I like to think of civilizations as their own unique organisms. They start off young and energetic expanding and incorporating all they can until they get to the maturity of Empire. Over time in the Empire phase the conquerors and conquered begin to blend together forming an ethno genesis until they reach old age where through various factors the Empire dies leaving the new people's to begin the cycle again. Rinse lather repeat.

What happened to the native Americans is tragic however it is the natural course of human existence. There are plenty groups of people who have shared the same fate, from the victims of the Arab, Mongolian, Bantu, Aztec and Roman conquests plus various others. We can always hope and wish for a more peaceful future but if I was a betting man I would put it all in that there will be plenty more genocides for us to mourn in the future. Remember peace is a desire, war is a fact; and history has never paid heed to human desires and ideals.

[FinalVow]

illegal immigration. wait I mean legal. I meant illegal. I mean... ohh I get it now. we came here without asking permission took the land and the resources. now that other people are doing the same thing suddenly it is illegal. good thing our country was apparently found on hypocrisy otherwise this could be overly boring.

[WhitePanther88]

Didn't they purchase the land from the native Americans lol?

[FinalVow]

@WhitePanther88 you mean before or after giving them diseases and pushing them to the middle of west and then to the deserts of the US? lets not even bother talking the number they killed to get them to move.

[Benedek38]

Was there a country with defined borders before that in the continent? No.

Therefore it ain't immigration. Idiot.

[Benedek38]

Also, the natives fough against the settlers. You just gave a really good reason for the right to actively fight immigration. Sucks to be an idiot, doesn't it.

[WhitePanther88]

It's not the settlers fault the native Americans had no immunity. People from the old world wanted land. Show me a country that was different than America.

[FinalVow]

@WhitePanther88 Precisely why no one listens to "illegal immigration" laws. our country was founded by illegal immigrants most of the people in the US are descended from illegal immigrants. This is one of the big reasons why American people are getting dumber we are trying to force hypocrisy onto everyone

[WhitePanther88]

Lol for something to be ilegal it has to be against the law. What law said that another people can't conquer the land of another?

[FinalVow]

@WhitePanther88 indeed. which is precisely why "illegal immigration" isn't a thing. people are coming here taking the land and the. resources and we want it back. I have a sense of deja vu all of a sudden. oh right that is what happened with the native Americans

[WhitePanther88]

So what your saying was the conquest of North America was legal because ilegal immigration isn't ilegal in Native American courts. Nice, I feel better about building my new home on indian burial ground now.

[Zorax]

It was a genocide, no doubt about it... America was built by people who were running away from the law in their original countries (mostly west European).
Currently, they are ruining lives all over the world, since the end of the 80's and beginning of the 90's, considering I'm from Croatia, ex Yugoslavia is an excellent example.

[Harsh_Ch]

There isn't anything much for debate here... a technologically advanced civilization conquering a lower one for the sake of land and resources. It's a typical war but not ruthless genocide as I think that is mainly perpetrated through radical ideologies
It even happens in modern times when USA invaded Afghanistan
However if ISIS invades USA and defeats it, then that would constitute ruthless genocide

[Matt57]

Typical war. The tribes were warring with eachother, but the white man just came over and was better at it. Native American warfare was kinda tame I guess, compared to the "total destruction" warfare of the Europeans. Of course everything else that happened, is completely fucked like the Indian Removal Act and whatnot.

[Matt57]

And in terms of the "their land was stolen!" Thing, I think the tribes were also trying to take eachother's territories as well.

[9teen]

America? You mean Europe vs Native tribes.

Ruthless genocide and land thieves.

America was built on genocide, criminality and slavery.

[Celtero]

I'd say it's a justifiable conquest. It's not like they're worse off though... they were living in teepees half naked and scalping each other, now they own multi million dollar casinos. Sure, their communities suck, but that's not our fault.

[Anonymous]

it's always funny when people try to paint this picture of the "innocent natives" and the brutally mean "white man" coming to destroy them. History shows that the native tribes were constantly at war with EACH OTHER. They were far more brutal to the women and prisoners than the Spanish when they moved in. But I know certain people are trying to change that factual history in the books as we speak.

[mishanw_1071]

Also, not “America” Europeans. This happened everywhere. From Australia, to Canada, to the US. And I voted genocide

[ENTP_EMO]

People need to look at it from the 1500-1600s. I'm actually surprised it wasn't more violent. Shows how humans have come when comparing 1600 to 1100 Europe. Justifiable Conquest.

[Sixgun77]

Combination of all 3. People need to stop acting like the continent being taken over was something unique. That kind of thing had been going on all over the world long before the new world was discovered. Not saying it was a good thing, but it wasn't anything uncommonly bad given the context of history up until then.

[Jonny317]

So you're justifying the actions carried out under the American flag?

[Sixgun77]

Not at all. I'm saying it's illogical to give it any special criticism or status vs all the other wars of conquest that happened beforehand.

[Jonny317]

But since that's what the question is, obviously the idea is to look at the past and learn from, so we don't repeat the same mistakes.

[Sixgun77]

I answered the question. My answer was that it was a combination of the 3 options given. After answering the question I criticized people who act like it was some kind of unique event (ignoring history).

[Jonny317]

So it was "justifiable." Understood. Thank you

[Sixgun77]

Please site where I've claimed it was justifiable. You are making a false claim, and if you were to tell anyone I said it was justified I would call you a liar.

[Jonny317]

Answers: "Justifiable Conquest, Ruthless Genocide, Typical War."
Your response "Combination of all 3."

[Sixgun77]

Conquest, but not justifiable. Ruthless, but not genocide. Typical war.

[Jonny317]

Not to keep disagreeing, but when you try to wipe out a whole nation or group, it's genocide. it happened in the the 40s in Germany and the 90s in Bosnia, it's happening now in Africa and Asia, the middle east. It's a stain on our history that we have already tried it.

[Whatthefluff]

Definitely ruthless genocide. Their land was stolen, their lives were lost. I mean, they were kicked off their own land. It's fd up.

[ManFrom1982]

Look, I don't want to get into a whole thing here, but you are aware that genocide doesn't actually have anything to do with land, right?

[Whatthefluff]

Yes, I am aware.

[YourNextEX]

Except most died due to disease, so it was inevitable.

[ATuairiscean]

I think you have to take historical context into consideration at the time it was colonisation or pioneering, today it would ruthless genocide or exploitation.

[JenSCDC]

A hell of a lot of it was due to disease, up to 90% mortality in some areas. The Black Plague? A mere 30%.

[Jonny317]

Diseases from European invaders

[jacquesvol]

@JenSCDC I quote:
" Sir Jeffery Amherst, commander of British forces in North America, wrote July 7, 1763, probably unaware of the events at Fort Pitt: "Could it not be contrived to Send the Small Pox among those Disaffected Tribes of Indians? We must, on this occasion, Use Every Stratagem in our power to Reduce them." He ordered the extirpation of the Indians and said no prisoners should be taken. About a week later, he wrote to Bouquet: "You will Do well to try to Innoculate the Indians by means of Blanketts as well as to try Every other method that can serve to Extirpate this Execrable Race."

Though a connection cannot be proven, a smallpox epidemic erupted in the Ohio Valley that may have been the result of the distribution of the infected articles at Fort Pitt."
www.history.org/.../warfare.cfm

[jacquesvol]

No accident.

[jacquesvol]

On June 24, 1763, William Trent, a local trader, recorded in his journal that two Indian chiefs had visited the fort, urging the British to abandon the fight, but the British refused. Instead, when the Indians were ready to leave, Trent wrote: "Out of our regard for them, we gave them two Blankets and an Handkerchief out of the Small Pox Hospital. I hope it will have the desired effect."
www.history.org/.../warfare.cfm

[jacquesvol]

www.jstor.org/.../27774278

[jacquesvol]

We block access to water:

blackfeetnation.com/.../...t-Minority-10-10-16.pdf

And we still poison their wells with industrial waste

[BigRob420]

Anytime you cover blankets in small pox and give them to babies it's genocide. 200 million were killed by the biological warefare alone.

[Benedek38]

The blanket thing happened once. It was done my English officers during a siege I think. Once.

[WhitePanther88]

Be serious they didn't have to give them blankets laced with small pox as bubonic plague, chickenpox, cholera, diphtheria, influenza, leprosy, malaria, measles, pertussis, scarlet fever, smallpox, typhoid fever, typhus, yaws and yellow fever were all so prevalent at the time and native Americans were so vulnerable to them that small pox blankets would have been a wasted pointless effort.

[Benedek38]

And roughly 90% of the natives simply died of old. world infections which they weren't accustomed to, due to not having domesticated animals. This was bot a coordinated effort, this was an accident. Keep in mind, a few hundred years earlier, 60% of Europe died from the Black Plague. Yeah. So 90% ain't that unheard of.

Educate yourself.

[BigRob420]

90% died of small pox after they were given blankets covered in small pox. It spread across the whole country. It was devised by the British because Native Americans refused to be slaves. There are journals from Native Americans all over the country that never met a white man and still died of small pox.

[WhitePanther88]

Don't be ridiculous. Small pox and other old world diseases arrived and spread through the new world the day the first Spaniard sneezed on a native American.

[BigRob420]

Try again. Native Americans in Mezo America didn't die at the rate they did in North America from disease. This is why there are so many people in South America that are Native American. Small pox is very contagious and very deadly.

[WhitePanther88]

Yes they did look it up. Central and South America were more densely populated and with vast advanced and powerful civilisations. How do you think s man like Cortez was able to conquer the Aztecs with only 500 men, because most of them were dying. The spainish also controlled Florida at one time as well as the American mid West and West coast. People in South and central America are very mixed through with Europeans so much so that there are very few actual native people's left.

[BigRob420]

He conquered the aztecs by looking like some white guy they were looking for in a proficy, then when he met the king he kidnapped him at gun point, demanded all the gold of the nation, then shot the king in the head as he sailed away. You really know nothing about this do you?

[WhitePanther88]

If he sailed away how did he conquer them?
How would he have defeated them at Battle of Otumba and capture Tenochtitlan (now Mexico city). Hell Cortez sank his ships before going on campaign.
Obviously you don't know history.

[BigRob420]

He took that gold bought an army and killed them with guns not disease. Which raiding trip to America do you count as conquering the aztecs?

[WhitePanther88]

The one where he captured what is now Mexico city and the whole of Mexico for Spain thus enriching Spain by giving it access to trade routes in the Pacific.
If various plagues in Europe brought from Asia wiped out as much as half of Europe's population at various times what do you suppose happened to native people's in South and central America who had never encountered them. Before Cortes' arrival, the native Mexican population is estimated to have been around 25 to 30 million. Fifty years later, the Mexican population was reduced to 3 million, mainly by infectious disease.

[BigRob420]

6 years after the British infected northern native Americans with smallpox their population went from 220 million to 20 million. There are books written by native Americans detailing the whole thing. I'm pretty sure cortez really didn't have an army for that tell the third trip.

[WhitePanther88]

The arrival of 102 Pilgrims aboard the Mayflower at Plymouth in 1620 and the settlements by the Puritans in Boston, Salem and Ipswich a decade later were accompanied by the demise of the native population of North America.

“Within these late years, there hath, by God’s visitation, reigned a wonderful plague, the utter destruction, devastation, and depopulation of that whole territory, so as there is not left any that do claim or challenge any kind of interest therein. We, in our judgment, are persuaded and satisfied, that the appointed time is come in which Almighty God, in his great goodness and bounty towards us, and our people, hath thought fit and determined, that those large and goodly territories, deserted as it were by their natural inhabitants, should be possessed and enjoyed by such of our subjects.” ––King James I

[WhitePanther88]

It was called the great dying. An estimated 18,000,000 Native Americans lived in North America before the 17th Century. As explorers and settlers arrived from Europe, a tidal wave of disease, especially in the years 1616-1619, reduced the native population by up to 90 percent. Pilgrim and Puritan colonists arrived on the New England coast to find empty villages waiting for them to occupy. Among the diseases introduced to the Native American population were smallpox, bubonic plague, chickenpox, cholera, the common cold, influenza, diphtheria, malaria, measles, scarlet fever, sexually transmitted diseases, typhoid, typhus, tuberculosis, leptospirosis, yellow fever and pertussis.

[WhitePanther88]

“In short time after the hand of God fell heavily upon them, with such a mortal stroke that they died on heaps as they lay in their houses… For in a place where many inhabited, there hath been but one left alive to tell what became of the rest…And the bones and skulls upon the severall places of their habitations made such a spectacle after my coming into those parts, that, as I traveled in that Forrest near the Massachussets, it seemd to me a new found Golgatha.

And by this means there is as yet but a small number of Salvages in New England, to that which hath been in former time, and the place is made so much the more fit for the English Nation to inhabit in, and erect in it Temples to the glory of God. “

—Thomas Morton, among the founders of the settlement at Mount Wollaston (present day Quincy, MA).

“For the natives, they are near all dead of the smallpox, so the Lord hath cleared our title to what we possess.”

–John Winthrop, Massachusetts governor, writing in 1634 from Boston

[BigRob420]

You purposefully picked the lowest estimation of population. The average estimate of the indigenous population of North America pre 1492 was 147 million. And yes 90% died of small pox in a 6 year period around 1650.

[WhitePanther88]

Well considering there was only maybe 70 million people in Europe at the time, 80 million in Africa, China the largest and most advanced and populous nation in the 1600s only had 200 million by the 1700s. 147 million is to high a figure for North American, it's too high even for all the Americas. There might have been only 500million people in the world at the time mostly in Asia.

[Benedek38]

Native South-Americans didn't die at such rates (still tragic rates, but lower) because they domesticated animals. Many illnesses came from domestic animals, and Europeans have adapted to it. North-American natives did NOT have domestic animals, therefore they were more suspectible to these diseases.

Also, the natives started dying the moment the Spanish set foot on the continent. This is hardly a debatable fact. Smallpox on the other hand only appeared in the 1700s I think. I'd have to look it up, but I recall they even know the exact name of the ship that introduced it to the continent, having patients with smallpox onboard.

@WhitePanther88 apparently knows a lot more about this than me, but suffice to say, we can all agree that you, sir, should go the fuck back to school, and learn proper history. Not the propaganda bullshit.

[BigRob420]

By having cows you get cow pox the vaccine to small pox. The disease wasn't transfered by animals. As for the population, I trust the native American numbers more than your estimate. The native Americans didn't suffer the Spanish flu killing 75% of everyone in Europe and Asia so to think they had less than one person per square mile is preposterous.

[WhitePanther88]

@Benedek38 lol the first instance of smallpox in the Americas was around 1496 among the Tanio people in Cuba. When spainish took control of the island. The spainish brought smallpox to the Americas when they first landed and it as well as all the other old world diseases spread through the continent like wildfire during the 1500s whether it be in the Caribbean, florida the Aztecs or the inacas. Small pox outbreaks in the Americas in the 1500s are well documented, perhaps pick up a book.
I dont think spainish flew killed 75% of anyone but it was the last major epidemic. Native Americans did not keep any recordings or figure or censuses during their 15000 years in the Americas.

[BigRob420]

Yes the plauge killed millions in Europe. The native Americans did keep records and even jornals from people who died of small pox. You said earlier "The Great Dyeing" was in 1650 and came out of the 13 original colonies. Right after my ancestor Paragon White, the first European born in north America, was born. His parents co authored the mayflower compact. Then they gave blankets full of small poxs to the indians. You got like a dollar for every one you killed.

[Benedek38]

@WhitePanther88 I didn't know much about the hustory of smallpox in the americas, apparently, it was indeed first transmitted to locals in south america. I thought that was some other disease, but apparently smallpox was there.

And the Spanish flu actually killed around 50 to 100 million people around the world, so it was more effective in that regard than smallpox. Even then, it was "only" 3-5% of the world's population.

[Benedek38]

Keep your retarded conspiracy theories at home.
Here's a diagram for you, idiot.
upload.wikimedia.org/.../..._EID-v8n4p360_Fig1.png

[BigRob420]

The world pop has tripled in the last 100 years. Your number of 3 billion people in Europe is to far from reality to be considered reasonable. If you don't understand percentages I don't believe the ones you present. By the way the Spanish Flu was also known as the Bubonic Plague. Anyone can type anything in to wiki. Hiliray Clinton's age change twice during the 2016 election. How about you source a reputable research agency?

[WhitePanther88]

1616-1619 the pilgrims and puritans settled in a land devoid of native Americans due to old world diseases they likely picked up trading with European traders or central American natives. www.cvltnation.com/.../
So what your saying is pilgrims vunerable to Small pox risked spreading it amongst themselves by carrying around infected blankets lol.
@Benedek38 I personally don't think spainish flu was as bad and was only as deadly as it was because of how much international travel and trade there was in 1919.
If you look at Europe during the great plague, bubonic plague, black death, Justinians plague.1346-1353 the black death some sources point to maybe 75-100 million in Eurasia overall and a rate 45-50% of people in some places while 70-80% on other countries.

[WhitePanther88]

@Benedek38 the bubonic plague also kept coming back 1360–1363; 1374; 1400; 1438–1439; 1456–1457; 1464–1466; 1481–1485; 1500–1503; 1518–1531; 1544–1548; 1563–1566; 1573–1588; 1596–1599; 1602–1611; 1623–1640; 1644–1654; and 1664–1667.

[BigRob420]

After the native Americans died they were scalped to collect the bounty on their head. Everyone ripped of the native Americans with trade of fake peace. I'll see if I can't track down a specific instance of the trade of small pox covered blankets to the native Americans. Also the Spanish Flu was the plauge. The mortality rate dropped in 1919 because of the invention of the I. V. so people didn't die of dehydration. Watching south America on the science channel right now. 9 out 10 native Americans in south America died during the great dying and there were still 11 million left after.

[WhitePanther88]

Mostly Mexicans took native American scalps.

[BigRob420]

No. Up until 1940 I believe in America they were still paying bounties on native Americans because of their beliefs. The scalping bounties for any native American came to an end in the 1800's. I've never heard of scalping bounties in south America. I may be bias as an American and only really know my own countries history.

[Benedek38]

"Up until 1940 I believe in America they were still paying bounties on native Americans because of their beliefs."
1) What beliefs?
2) Maybe provide proof? I can believe a lot of things, too.

" may be bias as an American and only really know my own countries history"
Oh you are biased alright, but not the way you think you are.

[WhitePanther88]

@Benedek38 mexico were still hunting native Americans as let as 1915.
In 1940 native Americans were at peace in the United States.

[Benedek38]

@WhitePanther88 He was cclearly talking about the US. Either way, he is an idiot.

[howlyz]

Ruthless Genocide more than the other options, also a reflection of another time (hopefully), and the mentality and nature of humans

[SuzyB]

Ruthless genocide and typical war go hand in hand in my opinion

[monkeynutts]

Yeah it was one militarily superior race against a weaker one, inevitable defeat for the Indians, and also a tragedy.

[AynonOMouse]

It was conquest. The Natives fought each other over territory too, just the colonists were better at it. Plus disease killed a lot of them. It's fine.

[JustWorthlessMe]

This may be why the right wing racists are so terrified about no longer being the majority in the US... afraid they may get the same treatment they dished out back then.

[Sixgun77]

I'm pretty sure no one in America was around back then, racist or not.

[JustWorthlessMe]

@Sixgun77 hence the phrase "back then" lol as in looking back to how their ancestors acted... since many of them feel the same way about darker skinned people

[Anonymous]

Its ridiculous to judge history based upon todays morality. Life is a struggle and is filled with groups fighting and usurping each other

[Light_beam]

Come on !

[Benedek38]

@Light_beam what? Never studied history?

[Light_beam]

@Benedek38 not the history you studied

[goolashh]

it was genocide but in the long run it worked out not only for the colonists but for the world

[Chaz269]

I don't think it was any of those. It was just plain greed and ignorance.

[jacquesvol]

plain greed and ignorance which led to genocide.

[Chaz269]

Yes, but not genocide for the sake of genocide. We weren't trying to wipe out native Americans, we just thought we had some right to take the land and resources. It's not the same. Hitler wasn't trying to claim land and resources from the Jews; he wanted to exterminate them.

[jacquesvol]

Not land: they hadn't much. Resources and assets.

[genolssvegas]

When the advanced alien race invades the earth to take the natural wealth of water, minerals, and value of self we will know the plight of being the less developed humans.

[WhitePanther88]

Perhaps your ancestors from Europe did already.

[JamesDuncan]

white weren't the only people who tried to conquer
its just that we were the best at it

[JesseTheMan]

Conquest. Not justifiable. Neither side was perfect, even though europeans were the agressors.

[ladsin]

“Europeans were the aggressors” in what sense are you thinking?

[JesseTheMan]

Invading the continent and taking it over?

[ladsin]

Many societies that didn't claim ownership of the land though right? In most places there were no city-states, but nomadic hunter-gatherers. For example those who landed at plymouth weren't invading in my estimation. Do you think they were, or was that just later as they started expanding?

[JesseTheMan]

True. It depends. It's not all black and white. And it didn't all happen at once.

[ladsin]

Surely true. Like the later reneging on treaties and whatnot.

[100lbguy]

by the term of genocide, yes (ruthless genocide) it was because it was their intention of doing so.

[daddysir77]

What about all the wars between native American tribes?

[MarketData]

It was pretty much genocide. They wiped out the whole culture.

[WhitePanther88]

Yeah I hate it when that happens *cough* *cough* * British empire* * cough*. Lol

[Benedek38]

So can we say people advocating for multiculturalism, and thus the dilution of national identity and culture, are actually advocating forfor genocide?

[MarketData]

@Benedek38 No, I don't think we can say that.

[Benedek38]

Why not? Isn't the destruction of culture a genocide, according to you?

[MarketData]

@WhitePanther88 The British Empire preserved cultures and usually left them better than when they arrived.

[MarketData]

@Benedek38 It is if you kill most of the people and confine the few survivors on "reservations".

[WhitePanther88]

You guys were hunting aborigines Up until 1928. You guys wiped out native Americans in Canada. You wiped out millions alone in India, slaughtered the Zulu, Basically wiped the Mauri out in New Zealand, killed thousands of boers, committed genocide in Sudan etc. Committed God knows how many genocides.

[WhitePanther88]

Sounds like the aborigines and Mauri in Australia and New Zealand. The British used to hunt the aborigines for sport up until 1928.

[MarketData]

@WhitePanther88 So we sent our convicts to Australia... who knew they would commit crimes?

[WhitePanther88]

Not the convicts but the British authorities, you know the Red coats and British governors who were in charge. But it's ok you gave the aborigines trains.

[MarketData]

@WhitePanther88 Who knew? They don't teach you this stuff in British schools.

[WhitePanther88]

"Yes play up, play up and play the game."
To be fair we too spent 5 years in GCSE history class learning about the holocaust and the atomic bomb drops.

[Benedek38]

"It is if you kill most of the people"
90% of the native population died from diseases they were not protected against. The smallpox blanket thing is bullshit, the native population has been steadily declining between the 15th and 16th century.
Reservations were actually created with the consent of native americans to help them reserve their heritage, and still assimilate into society. They were a clever way of solving a potentially endless conflict. Sure, it might sound cruel - on the other hand, you can't just transfer potentially a thousand years of culture and social change int he matter of days. You need again, ASSIMILATION.

[WhitePanther88]

@Benedek38 I agree the natives loving in the Americas were not soft, they were well trained warriors. Some tribes went from 30,000 warriors to just 300 thanks to epidemics. Pilgrims and purtitans thought God was clearing the land of Native Americans because the natives were dying out before they came into contact with them and they just moved on to their then unoccupied land without opposition.

[blubblubblub]

Invasion?

[ladsin]

How do you figure?

[blubblubblub]

Cause they came into a country where there was already many societies.

[ladsin]

Many societies that didn't claim ownership of the land though right? In most places there were no city-states, but nomadic hunter-gatherers. For example those who landed at plymouth weren't invading in my estimation. Do you think they were, or was that just later as they started expanding?

[Benedek38]

BOOM!
Well said. Natives had no conception of owner land, so invasion wasn't possible in the first place.

[blubblubblub]

Ownership of the land wasn't a concept they practiced. You're applying all these western terminologies and ideas to a completely foreign society. It doesn't justify conquerng an already occupied land. Just landing of course wasn't an invasion, but continuing was.

[ladsin]

Cool, thanks.

[blubblubblub]

Your stance?

[ladsin]

Don’t know. Listening to an argument and watching these discussions.

[blubblubblub]

oh okiess

[Benedek38]

The natived were trying to press. back the colonist advancement, and reclaim territories as well. This was a two way street, only natives sucked at fighting.

[blubblubblub]

yah but whose the one randomly barging in? just cos there was retaliation doesn't mean it wasn't an invasion lmao

[Benedek38]

As it was pointed out, it can't be an invasion, because the natives didn't occupy the territory. They didn't form ownership over it. And they (initially) didn't use military force toget their lands. They literally jsut settled down, and everyone was singing kumbaya. Then probably at some point the natives felth threatened, and a war broke out.

[Jonny317]

@Benedek38 alt-Right skewed history. If someone invaded your home with advanced weapons and bilological warfare, you would call it what it is.

[blubblubblub]

@Jonny317 yes 👏

[Benedek38]

@Jonny317
You brought contemporary politics into this, and played the "alt right" card. You've already lost the argument.

[Jonny317]

@Benedek38 So just to be clear, you're "alt-right"

[jacquesvol]

@Benedek38 Land was owned by the tribes www.blameitonthevoices.com/.../...nd-cessions.html

www.emersonkent.com/.../native_american_map.jpg

[jacquesvol]

@Jonny317 He knows it

[Benedek38]

@jacquesvol It's funny because I didn't know the natives were writing with latin letter, and had maps.
Fuck off. A territory you defend is not the same as a land you own. Apex predators like lions or tigers split up their areas into their hunting territories, but they don't own the land, because they haven't recorded it, and solidified the borders with peace agreements. Same with the natives.

[Benedek38]

@jacquesvol Private ownership requires a legal framework in which it can function, whether that be a feudal bond, a government contract, or anything. You have to write it down. If you don't, you can't call it your own, because others can just say they don't recognize it and boom, it's gone.

[jacquesvol]

@Benedek38 ethnologiists' work.

[Pamina]

@Jonny317 It's not even a secret that he's a white supremacist. He (like all these Alt-Right pussies, on here and anywhere) just tries really hard to be crytpic enough about it. lol

[Jonny317]

@Benedek38 You're not an apex predator otehrwise you wouldn't be posting on GAG. Stick to what you know, cross burning, tiki torches, etc.

[Jonny317]

@Pamina Out in the real world he's a sad little man

[Benedek38]

@Jonny317 @Pamina
I suggest looking up what the fuck "alt right" means. It means ethno-nationalism. I am not even close to being an ethno-nationalist. So I also suggest getting your head out of your ass.

[Jonny317]

@Benedek38 So what do you stand for? I stand for equal rights for all, unity among races/ ethnicities, progress and moving forward. Ask me anything. Now how about you?

[Benedek38]

@Jonny317
I simply don't give a shit about race or ethnicity, I am probably center right or centrist in terms of political beliefs. Equality is a basic human right as it should be, and I that's all I am going to say about it.
I don't wish to ask you anything, unless you dial back the accusations and ad hominems.

[Pamina]

@Jonny317 Not only out in the real world. I always find it entertaining to see how he (and the other Alt-Righters on here) try everything they can to always make sure to never be open about their beliefs. The whole "I don't care about race" thing for instance. Straight out of the Alt-Right playbook. It's all about disguising their true beliefs. So pathetic, yet so amusing to watch. Little worms. :)

[Jonny317]

@Pamina Exactly, he'll never own up to his despicable intentions. Little men are little always.

[Pamina]

@Jonny317 To be fair, it's a strategy that's been highly successful these last few years. Open fascism isn't popular, so they have to be cryptic about it.

[Jonny317]

@Benedek38 No need to ask, I'm an open book, but I don't understand the whole Alt Right thing. What makles you hate people because of their color/ ethnicity? I just don't get it. can you explain?

[Jonny317]

@Pamina You're right. I think that when electoral-college-appointed DJT is impeached these guys will all crawl back under their rocks again.

[geminiboner]

Mr. Annoyous is correct, just DON'T repeat the bad shit we've done already...

[MrsBaker]

I thought it was pretty typical for a war.

[Anonymous]

Everything Changed when the white people attacked😂😂😂
Firenation for dummmys

[Anonymous]

Most Native Americans were killed due to disease, which was inevitable. Since they were isolated, Native Americans never built up immunities.

[Waffles731]

Pretty ruthless genocide.

[Anonymous]

It was a genocide, no doubt about it.

[Pineapple_Boy]

Normal Conquest back in those days

[Aynsof]

All of the above?

[SketchForger]

Horrible genocide.

[grega239]

war. no need to overcomplicate it

[name_is_eric]

Justifiable conquest.

[QueenOfWesteros]

How so?

[name_is_eric]

"The right of conquest is the right of a conqueror to territory taken by force of arms. ... Proponents state that this right acknowledges the status quo, and that denial of the right is meaningless unless one is able and willing to use military force to deny it."

In other words, both sides knew the stakes. The natives, in stead of bonding together, decided to stay in their own tribes.

[Ellie-V]

That’s false. The natives brought the foreigners in and gave them food and water and shelter.
The Europeans didn’t agree to their way of life or their belief systems. They took advantage of the natives and turned them into slaves and rape cows.
But of course, the natives ended up dying because of the foreign disease.

[name_is_eric]

"Rape cow" sounds like such a fantasy.

The natives weren't sophisticated or hospitable. Offering the strangers shelter was from caution, fear.
The diseases were unfortunate, but that is part of the cycle of life. If you can't adapt, you perish.
The first Europeans, who landed on the coast, wanted to turn the natives into Christianity. That is not unheard of, it happened in Europe too. So why is it suddenly such a big problem?

[WhitePanther88]

@Ellie-V not true entirely. The original British settlers speak of huge swaths of land once occupied before being empty. Basically between 1616-1619 something called the great dying wiped out millions of native Americans settlers like the puritan thought it was the hand of God but first contact with white men brought epidemics of smallpox, bubonic plague, chickenpox, cholera, the common cold, influenza, diphtheria, malaria, measles, scarlet fever, sexually transmitted diseases, typhoid, typhus, tuberculosis, leptospirosis, yellow fever and pertussis. Pilgrim and Puritan colonists arrived on the New England coast to find empty villages waiting for them to occupy. Anyone of those deadly epidemics had killed many in the old world on their own but imagine the arriving in thd new world all together for the first time.

[Ellie-V]

So what if they weren’t technologically advanced? That doesn’t give someone the right to take over their shit 😂
I may not like a messy room I enter, but that doesn’t mean it’s my place to clean it up for them.

Also, forcing religious beliefs is wrong in every single way. Period.
Maybe the Europeans were on some revenge fantasy plot trying to terrorize the next group of vulnerable people just as it was done to them. It’s wrong.
And the natives never forced their religious beliefs on the Euros. They taught them how to survive and they wanted them to leave the Buffalo alone but that’s as far as it went.

[woooooooo]

It depends on how you look at it

[jacquesvol]

Ruthless Genocide

[AoiKaito]

Genocide

[LuWe22]

colonization

[WhitePanther88]

Yeah its always those pesky Germans

[Anonymous]

Genocide