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.
And so to conclude this analysis, slavery was a stain on our history, because those who engaged in it should have been expected to know better. Removing primitive tribes scattered about the landscape during Colonial times was not a stain. It made perfect sense given what was going on - wanton slaughter and constant wars. Europeans not only correctly invaded, they improved the lot of those they conquered by introducing civilization. In the historical context, dominating lesser beings was how it was done.
We don't do it now. We are more developed.
Although I have to ask the question. Would it be a bad thing to invade certain well-known areas of the world right now where barbarism and slavery and tribalism and sex trade and warring mystic religious factions are rampant? Where violence and savagery are daily occurrences and life is hell for everyone including the strong that kill the weak, until they, too, are killed when they forget to look over their shoulder. Would invading these areas, killing the thugs, and forcing European sensibility be such a bad thing? Is it better to leave primitivism in place and just ignore it? Perhaps. Or perhaps it would be better to wipe it out and impose Western sensibility since it just works better and at least you have some measure of normal rational life. Food for thought.
Correct. Everything to its historical context. In Colonial times it was acceptable to move in and wipe out primitive tribes that stood in the way of advancement and progress. Why? Because it made no difference. The primitive tribes regularly acted in a barbaric fashion with each other, killing, raping, plundering, crippling, maiming, you name it. What are you protecting by not moving them off the land? The killing would have gone on anyway, so there was no reason not to take care of business and move primitives out of the way. And replace the barbarism with civilization. Those Indians that were smart enough to assimilate gained the advantages of European civilization, aka not having to worry that a competitor was going to slash his throat and take his scalp. Civilization has its advantages.
Those that wanted to fight deserved their fate, just as they did when they attacked each other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Paolella
Do you need evidence that being shot is more humane and civilized than being scalped? I'll take it on faith.
And so to conclude this analysis, slavery was a stain on our history, because those who engaged in it should have been expected to know better. Removing primitive tribes scattered about the landscape during Colonial times was not a stain. It made perfect sense given what was going on - wanton slaughter and constant wars. Europeans not only correctly invaded, they improved the lot of those they conquered by introducing civilization. In the historical context, dominating lesser beings was how it was done.
We don't do it now. We are more developed.
Although I have to ask the question. Would it be a bad thing to invade certain well-known areas of the world right now where barbarism and slavery and tribalism and sex trade and warring mystic religious factions are rampant? Where violence and savagery are daily occurrences and life is hell for everyone including the strong that kill the weak, until they, too, are killed when they forget to look over their shoulder. Would invading these areas, killing the thugs, and forcing European sensibility be such a bad thing? Is it better to leave primitivism in place and just ignore it? Perhaps. Or perhaps it would be better to wipe it out and impose Western sensibility since it just works better and at least you have some measure of normal rational life. Food for thought.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 14 hours ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,162 posts, read 13,449,232 times
Reputation: 19454
Probably one of the worst stains was in relation to the US Eugenics pogram which gave Hitler a lot of inspiration and he even wrote to US Scientists in Chicago when he was a Corporal in the German Army. Whilst the funding of Nazi rallies by Ford and US Banks was not Americas proudest moment, nor was the involvement of companies such as Kodak, Random House Publishing, IBM, Coca Cola, General Motors, Associated Press, MGM, Dow Chemicals etc etc. Some of the acts carried out in Vietnam such as the My Lai Massacre were al;so questionable. However most countries have stains on their history, the European countries more so than most, so let those without sin cast the first stone.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 14 hours ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,162 posts, read 13,449,232 times
Reputation: 19454
More controversially I have seen stories in newspapers in recent years and there have been books written suggesting US and other Allied Soldiers raped and murdered their way across Europe in a similar fashion to the Soviets, however I am not sure if there is viable evidence for this although it is supported by some Military Historians and Writers and there have been media stories in recent years.
Which of these two actions will have the longest cast the most deleterious shadow over the character of American's legacy of American's character from slavey and Jim Crow, the genocide of Native People or the internment of Japanese Americand during WII or the mass deportation undocumented/illgeal aliens/
Slavery after the rest of the civilized world renounced it.
The British had concentration camps for the Boers. Many died. I don't think that the Japanese died in the camps as the Boers did.
The genocide of the type that the American Indian went through happens whenever a technologically superior civilization encounters a culture that can't fight back effectively. I hope that I'm dead and buried when our broadcasts of The Munsters reaches some civilization that can move faster than light.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 14 hours ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,162 posts, read 13,449,232 times
Reputation: 19454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonyafd
Slavery after the rest of the civilized world renounced it.
The British had concentration camps for the Boers. Many died. I don't think that the Japanese died in the camps as the Boers did.
The genocide of the type that the American Indian went through happens whenever a technologically superior civilization encounters a culture that can't fight back effectively. I hope that I'm dead and buried when our broadcasts of The Munsters reaches some civilization that can move faster than light.
Slavery wins.
Whilst I am deeply ashamed of some of the things Britain did, the concentration of the population was the objectrive of the camps and we didn't gas people or anything like that. Sadly at the time disease and illness were ripe and medicine was not that advanced. Indeed 22,000 British soldiers were killed during the Boer Wars, of which only 35% died in battle, and the remaining 65% died from disease.
And so to conclude this analysis, slavery was a stain on our history, because those who engaged in it should have been expected to know better. Removing primitive tribes scattered about the landscape during Colonial times was not a stain. It made perfect sense given what was going on - wanton slaughter and constant wars. Europeans not only correctly invaded, they improved the lot of those they conquered by introducing civilization. In the historical context, dominating lesser beings was how it was done.
We don't do it now. We are more developed.
Although I have to ask the question. Would it be a bad thing to invade certain well-known areas of the world right now where barbarism and slavery and tribalism and sex trade and warring mystic religious factions are rampant? Where violence and savagery are daily occurrences and life is hell for everyone including the strong that kill the weak, until they, too, are killed when they forget to look over their shoulder. Would invading these areas, killing the thugs, and forcing European sensibility be such a bad thing? Is it better to leave primitivism in place and just ignore it? Perhaps. Or perhaps it would be better to wipe it out and impose Western sensibility since it just works better and at least you have some measure of normal rational life. Food for thought.
You've bought into the text book ideology of Native Americans, which I might add is completely wrong.
Most of the Native Peoples living on the east coast of America died of a plague before the white settlers ever hit the shores of North America, we can thank the Spaniards for this, 90% of the Native Americans on the east coast died of smallpox brought over by the Europeans. It was estimated that about 20 million Native Americans died from the epidemic on the east coast and about 50 million died from it throughout North America.
Were these people "primitive", not at all, they knew how to live off the land and how to exist in the harsh climate of New England, that's more than we can say for the Europeans who arrive here. Most Native American believed in personal hygiene, which is more than one can say about the first Europeans that arrived here, from all accounts it is said that one could smell the white man long before you could see him. They described them as smelling like feces (to put it politely).
Are we more developed? Maybe in the area of technology, but on how to treat the land you live on I think we are way behind the 8 ball when it come to Native Americans. They have lived in North America for about 15-20 thousand years, they relied on the land to support them and figured out what was needed to keep it productive, with out poisoning it.
You said "forcing European sensibility" the way I see it that is an oxymoron.
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.
