Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think the Europeans basically had nicer tools, which gave them the ability to commit genocide. Every race has been tainted by the Darkness that has come from Outside...
I agree with this, Whites simply has the technology to commit acts on a much more global scale and record it. Where-as some remote tribe in the Middle of Africa could have done similar acts but it was much more localized and there was no real civilization there so nothing was recorded or remembered.
Instances of genocide that have been recorded (Pol Pot, Hutus, etc) in modern times with non-European perps have mainly been transient events, extending over a few days to a couple of years. The European powers extirpated indigenous people systematically and methodically over spans of centuries. As they sailed and then flew around the world, there was a seemingly endless task of genocide trying God's patience.
However, in all fairness, the Europeans did not commit true genocide. They preferred to leave a manageable population in place to use for slave labor and chattel wealth.
Why are only Europeans condemned for genocide/colonialism?
Pretty much because they are the only ones who did this. When the genocide of American natives occured it was by European transplants. Same in Africa, European transplants. Australia, European convicts.
Instances of genocide that have been recorded (Pol Pot, Hutus, etc) in modern times with non-European perps have mainly been transient events, extending over a few days to a couple of years. The European powers extirpated indigenous people systematically and methodically over spans of centuries. As they sailed and then flew around the world, there was a seemingly endless task of genocide trying God's patience.
If the other races had the same technology as the Europeans they would have done it too.
If the Hutu could massacre the Tootsie with knives and Chaka-Zulu could obliterate all of those around him with spears and force them into his army, imagine what they could have done if they had advanced past the spear and developed things such as a wheel or written language?
Other peoples did the same as Europeans, they just didn't have the technology or intelligence to implement it globally. While Europeans were mapping the world and sailing to far off continents other peoples had yet to develop a written language.
If the other races had the same technology as the Europeans they would have done it too.
If the Hutu could massacre the Tootsie with knives and Chaka-Zulu could obliterate all of those around him with spears and force them into his army, imagine what they could have done if they had advanced past the spear and developed things such as a wheel or written language?
Other peoples did the same as Europeans, they just didn't have the technology or intelligence to implement it globally. While Europeans were mapping the world and sailing to far off continents other peoples had yet to develop a written language.
You're saying, and possibly correctly, that genocide is a natural attribute of human behavior, just as female black widow spiders eat their mates, and the beauty of intellectual development and industry is that it assures greater genocidal efficiency and success. If black-widow spiders could read and write and fashion machines, they could more efficiently eat their mates, representing a huge step forward in arachnidom.
Pretty much because they are the only ones who did this. When the genocide of American natives occured it was by European transplants. Same in Africa, European transplants. Australia, European convicts.
The Native Americans that are around today are the descendants of peoples who systematically and methodically spread across North America committing genocide and colonizing the previous groups of Native Americans. The Native Americans are not a single people and did not just pop up in place where the Europeans found them. They came in waves and as competition arose, they did what later invaders, the Europeans, did.
The same can be said of Africa. At one time, most Africans south of the Congo were like the bushmen, the !Kung of southern Africa, a racially and culturally distinct group who only count very few among their people today. Most of their kin were destroyed and displaced by the African tribes we think of as being native to southern Africa such as the Zulu.
Genocide and oppression are not conditional on skin color or culture.
I think plenty of non-whites have been condemned for genocide or abuses. Idi Amin, Mao, Pol Pot, and so forth.
Although I think there's a tendency to be a bit Eurocentric in thinking about history, good and bad, that I don't think has entirely evaporated. Even some of the "Afrocentric" stuff I've seen is about how XYZ "white guy" was "really black" or how Thor should be played by a black guy rather than say making the Mali Empire a household name or working to make a film version of Sundiata. (Or to try to do for African legend/mythos what Tolkien did for Celtic/Norse)
So for many the civilizations/cultures not directly connected to European peoples might end up as footnotes or sidelines meant to celebrate diversity more than being significant elements of human history involving fully realized people in real civilizations. Ones that had violence, gentle moments, political repression, brilliance, madness, love, tragedy, triumph, music, art, and all that. So the people who are unable to name Mongol atrocities are likely also incapable of naming Mongol achievements. And so forth. (I might exaggerate a little)
If the other races had the same technology as the Europeans they would have done it too.
Other peoples did the same as Europeans, they just didn't have the technology or intelligence to implement it globally. While Europeans were mapping the world and sailing to far off continents other peoples had yet to develop a written language.
However, others did have the technology, but never engaged in doing it on the scale that the Europeans did. The Persian/Muslim Empires of the Middle East were generally much more scientifically advanced than their counterparts in Europe. Indeed, many of the "advances" that allowed the types of navigation you are discussing were borrowed from the Arabs.
Additionally, the Chinese as early as the 14th century were exploring the Pacific and Indian Oceans and for most of history they were a much more advanced society than the ones in Europe in terms of science and technology.
Even India had a civilization that was the technological and scientific equivalent of Europe for most of history.
While each of those civilizations certainly committed genocide (I agree that it seems to be a human universal) none of them exported it on quite the level that the Europeans did. Certainly in the areas it was originally practiced the Europeans enjoyed an overwhelming advantage in firepower. However, what was unique about the European situation that made them seek out such things.
My guess would be that there was such strong competition and a delicate balance of power in Europe that the countries who were capable of overseas expansion (primarily England, France, Spain and the Dutch) did so in order to attempt to gain advantage over each other. This push simply didn't exist for other civilizations that certainly had the technological means, they simply lacked the impetus.
So, I guess my retort is that "technology" and "intelligence" were not the sole domain of Europeans. Therefore, there must have been another reason.
So, I guess my retort is that "technology" and "intelligence" were not the sole domain of Europeans. Therefore, there must have been another reason.
Land land and more land. Remember, there was a time when Europe was infatuated with land. Everybody wanted land and that was something they didn't have an abundance of.
My guess would be that there was such strong competition and a delicate balance of power in Europe that the countries who were capable of overseas expansion (primarily England, France, Spain and the Dutch) did so in order to attempt to gain advantage over each other. This push simply didn't exist for other civilizations that certainly had the technological means, they simply lacked the impetus.
Very good point.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
