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.
The story of the smallpox blanket was made up? Do you have a source for that? I am not saying your wrong but I thought I read that it was done in a war or two. Pontiac's war? I don't remember.
Even assuming it was done in "a war or two" that would not have wiped out 95% of the Amerindian population. It is a fallback position if deliberate killing in large scale is debunked.
Don¡t be so obtuse. Most Amerindians died of smallpox and flux. English wiped them, that's why you have almost no Amerindians in the US.
I am NOT being obtuse, you are seriously trying to claim that the Spanish had better morals! I mean really! The conquistadors murdered native Americans by the thousands and nicked their gold that is the truth of it!
Even assuming it was done in "a war or two" that would not have wiped out 95% of the Amerindian population. It is a fallback position if deliberate killing in large scale is debunked.
I understand what you meant and that history is often exaggerated or simplified to meet todays political standards.
In a thread a few months ago about the Confederate statues being removed in New Orleans, someone said that they were put up by racists to protest a 1896 Supreme Court decision and the North. It took 2 minutes to look up that the main statue, the Robert E. Lee Memorial, was put up more then 10 years earlier then Supreme Court decision and the sculptor was a New Yorker! So the poster was wrong. Sometimes history is falsified both deliberately but sometimes just mistakenly.
But having said that, you made it sound like you knew that the small pox blanket story was totally false? I am not trying to drive you crazy but there is a difference between saying is overrated versus saying something is totally false.
But having said that, you made it sound like you knew that the small pox blanket story was totally false? I am not trying to drive you crazy but there is a difference between saying is overrated versus saying something is totally false.
If not false, it's very overrated. Another part of the "white bad Red good" narrative.
In a moral sense, they weren't the best, but weren't the worst either. It's interesting to note that the Native Americans, and black slaves both considered the British to be less cruel than the independent American government that succeeded them. I think the most brutal colonial powers were the Belgians, and the early 20th century Japanese.
What the British did excel at was developing successful colonies and spreading social, scientific, and technological advancements, and although it plundered nations, particularly India, it also invested heavily in infrastructure across the Empire. Lots of former British colonies developed into successful first world societies. Such as the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Singapore, etc. Compare that to the legacy of the Spanish Empire, for example. Which left behind lots of poorly developed nations.
I am NOT being obtuse, you are seriously trying to claim that the Spanish had better morals! I mean really! The conquistadors murdered native Americans by the thousands and nicked their gold that is the truth of it!
Like I said, humans are the same THE WORLD OVER, and yes farinello that means you Spanish too, despite your feelings of moral superiority.
There would be some precedent for this given the work of the Spanish missions in trying to save the souls of the "heathen" natives.
In truth all colonial powers (those in power) looked down on all native populations. It seems to be splitting hairs to try to claim that the British practiced any sort of superior beneficial policy towards the native subjects in their colonial empire.
The better performance of former British colonies in both financial and human rights terms could be attributed to getting an early start of colonization in terms of advantageous locations along with more disenfranchised British citizens leaving the motherland to resettle in the colonies.
As colonizers, British excelled in transforming barren islands or small fishing villages
into great trading ports, i.e. Singapore, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Port Aden, Malacca,....etc.
Have all British colonies evolved into better places after the British left? Not really. Though there are stellar examples like Singapore and Hong Kong, many other British colonies ended up like Somalia and Zimbabwe.
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.
