M.Dancer Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 Do you have proof they didn't? There are two theories. Are they equally plausible? That's ultimately a personal opinion. that is silly, she isn't making the claim they did or didn't. You are making the claim, you provide proof. Now not to lump the spanish, the portuguese, the french, the dutch, the english and all the rest together...but each had different circumstances and methods. The spanish and portuguese looted....the english, french and dutch sought trading partners and allies... The ultimate proof is in british north america there are extant indian cultures...in spanish america the culture was all but wiped out...nothing remains of montezuma's culture that isn't reconstituted.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted July 13, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 Exactly. As pointed out in an earlier discussion, in response to jbg: It is important to note, however, that these epidemics were just some of the causes of population decline during European contact. Intermarriage, slavery, wars, massacres, political disruption, economic changes, malnutrition, destruction of traditional subsistence patterns, and alcoholism also changed the composition of many Native American groups, whether they favored the changes or fought them. Eventually, these changes caused substantial depopulation and cultural change. And the epidemics were due to face-to-face exposure, not the "intent" to expose them via blankets. While I may or may not have responded then, my point is that the whites would not have been able to substantially impinge on native hegemony over the land if their population hadn't been destroyed prior to most white colonization. The fact is that the whites have made barely a dent in Africa and Asia. They've made more than a dent in the Americas and Australia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted July 13, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 Many former colonial holding turned nation are doing much poorer without the British than with. Pakistan, Zimbabwe and Nigeria are doing splendidly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 Pakistan, Zimbabwe and Nigeria are doing splendidly. Pakistan was never a British colonial holding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngusThermopyle Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 (edited) Pakistan, Zimbabwe and Nigeria are doing splendidly. Yeah sure. Zimbabwe, once known as the breadbasket of Africa is a hell hole. Mugabe has driven it to the brink and only now is it starting to show signs of recovery, mostly through foreign investment in resources, however that may change as Mugabe has threatened to expropriate any where from 51% to (in his words) over 100% of these investments. Further to that he has also displaced large segments of the population making them homeless and continues to fracture and divide the political climate of the country. This country has also been repeatedly cited for human rights abuses and received many international sanctions as a result. Now that Mugabe is finally out the international community is still watching and waiting to see if any real change will actually happen in this country as it has only been a few years so far. If this is your idea of doing splendidly then I'd hate to see what you consider doing poorly. Regarding Nigeria I should add that although they are making lots of oil money they are still plagued by ethnic violence and systematic political corruption. This encompasses voter intimidation, vote rigging and other such splendid practices. They've progressed somewhat but still have a very far way to go in order to obtain what most would consider a condition of doing splendidly. Edited July 13, 2011 by AngusThermopyle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 Yeah sure. Zimbabwe, once known as the breadbasket of Africa is a hell hole. Mugabe has driven it to the brink and only now is it starting to show signs of recovery, mostly through foreign investment in resources, however that may change as Mugabe has threatened to expropriate any where from 51% to (in his words) over 100% of these investments. Further to that he has also displaced large segments of the population making them homeless and continues to fracture and divide the political climate of the country. This country has also been repeatedly cited for human rights abuses and received many international sanctions as a result. Now that Mugabe is finally out the international community is still watching and waiting to see if any real change will actually happen in this country as it has only been a few years so far. If this is your idea of doing splendidly then I'd hate to see what you consider doing poorly. I'm almost positive that jbg was being sarcastic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 The ultimate proof is in british north america there are extant indian cultures...in spanish america the culture was all but wiped out...nothing remains of montezuma's culture that isn't reconstituted. This is the closest to the truth in my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 The real genocide takes place after the native culture is long gone. Media and literature will give the public the John Wayne treatment on the subject. We were led to believe there were a few scatered tribes in North America...little patches of barbaric humanity that stole your hair and scalp as a trophy.. That they danced around hooting and hollering and ate their own young...so the film industry created the idea that they were a minimal entity and getting rid of them was no big deal. Meanwhile - and correct my figures but from what I understand there were about 80 million native people strewn across all of North America..They had a God - a monetary and trade system - that stretched for thousands of miles....and they did NOT eat their young. So much historic revisionism has taken place in regards to the displacement of natural people in North America that there is only a bit of superfical guilt...left - that is motivated by politics ...If the whites truely cared about what they had done-- there would not be such a human degradation of the surviors of this genocide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted July 13, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 (edited) Pakistan was never a British colonial holding. Yes it was. It was part of the colony called "India" before the 1947 partition. Edited July 13, 2011 by jbg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted July 13, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 Yeah sure. Zimbabwe, once known as the breadbasket of Africa is a hell hole. Mugabe has driven it to the brink and only now is it starting to show signs of recovery, mostly through foreign investment in resources, however that may change as Mugabe has threatened to expropriate any where from 51% to (in his words) over 100% of these investments. Further to that he has also displaced large segments of the population making them homeless and continues to fracture and divide the political climate of the country. This country has also been repeatedly cited for human rights abuses and received many international sanctions as a result. Now that Mugabe is finally out the international community is still watching and waiting to see if any real change will actually happen in this country as it has only been a few years so far. If this is your idea of doing splendidly then I'd hate to see what you consider doing poorly. Regarding Nigeria I should add that although they are making lots of oil money they are still plagued by ethnic violence and systematic political corruption. This encompasses voter intimidation, vote rigging and other such splendid practices. They've progressed somewhat but still have a very far way to go in order to obtain what most would consider a condition of doing splendidly. You nailed it, but how did you know? I'm almost positive that jbg was being sarcastic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 Yes it was. It was part of the colony called "India" before the 1947 partition. Pakistan, as a word, is a 20th century creation. It is a combination of Punjab, Afghan province, Kashmir, Sind and Baluchistan The fact that punjab, kashmir and baluchistan straddle pakistans neighbours is mildly amusing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted July 14, 2011 Report Share Posted July 14, 2011 Yeah sure. Zimbabwe, once known as the breadbasket of Africa is a hell hole. Mugabe has driven it to the brink and only now is it starting to show signs of recovery, mostly through foreign investment in resources, however that may change as Mugabe has threatened to expropriate any where from 51% to (in his words) over 100% of these investments. Further to that he has also displaced large segments of the population making them homeless and continues to fracture and divide the political climate of the country. This country has also been repeatedly cited for human rights abuses and received many international sanctions as a result. Now that Mugabe is finally out the international community is still watching and waiting to see if any real change will actually happen in this country as it has only been a few years so far. If this is your idea of doing splendidly then I'd hate to see what you consider doing poorly. Regarding Nigeria I should add that although they are making lots of oil money they are still plagued by ethnic violence and systematic political corruption. This encompasses voter intimidation, vote rigging and other such splendid practices. They've progressed somewhat but still have a very far way to go in order to obtain what most would consider a condition of doing splendidly. He was just being ironic, Angus! JBG knows well the real situation in those countries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted July 14, 2011 Report Share Posted July 14, 2011 Yes it was. It was part of the colony called "India" before the 1947 partition. Right. It was part of India. It wasn't "Pakistan." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngusThermopyle Posted July 14, 2011 Report Share Posted July 14, 2011 You nailed it, but how did you know? Sorry jbg, sometimes its hard to know who is being facetious and who is not on these forums with some of the outlandish claims that are made. On a side note when I was a kid I lived in South Africa before we moved to Australia so I've always had more than just a passing interest in this continent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted July 14, 2011 Report Share Posted July 14, 2011 Some absurd idealogs that sit at the UN - will hear of horrific killings taking place in failed African states - They always seem to wait as the hacking of men woman and children is going on - for the body count to rise as high as possible - because they have this elitist notion that Africa should go through a process they call "re-wilding" - clearing out those pesky black humans that are of no consequence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted July 14, 2011 Report Share Posted July 14, 2011 American Woman, on 12 July 2011 - 10:54 AM, said: Do you have proof that all the monarchs, merchants, and militia wanted to destroy Native cultures in the colonies?Do you have proof they didn't? There are two theories. Are they equally plausible? That's ultimately a personal opinion. Ummmm. You're the one making the accusation - the one making the accusation has the burden of proof. You think people can just accuse others of anything they want and then make others prove it's not true? Ridiculous. And your response tells me that you have no proof. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted July 14, 2011 Report Share Posted July 14, 2011 There was always the kid in the school ground that would spit as he yelled "prove it"...meanwhile his pockets were always full of other peoples baseball cards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted July 14, 2011 Report Share Posted July 14, 2011 There was always the kid in the school ground that would spit as he yelled "prove it"...meanwhile his pockets were always full of other peoples baseball cards. Ummm. Ok. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Jack Posted July 26, 2011 Report Share Posted July 26, 2011 My point is not that the whites weren't wanton and cruel. My point is that most of the deaths occurred from epidemics, not massacres. Let us not forget that whatever evil Europeans brought to the Native Americans, it was far more than repaid by the 'gift' of tobacco, which was unknown in Europe prior to 1492. The dirty blankets may have spread small pox, then, but tobacco still kills and kills and kills. And BTW, what did ever stop natives of other continents to come and explore Europe? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted July 26, 2011 Report Share Posted July 26, 2011 Let us not forget that whatever evil Europeans brought to the Native Americans, it was far more than repaid by the 'gift' of tobacco, which was unknown in Europe prior to 1492. The dirty blankets may have spread small pox, then, but tobacco still kills and kills and kills. And BTW, what did ever stop natives of other continents to come and explore Europe? Gee ... perhaps they weren't greedy robber barons seeking to dump their peasants and privatise the common land for private profit! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Jack Posted July 28, 2011 Report Share Posted July 28, 2011 Gee ... perhaps they weren't greedy robber barons seeking to dump their peasants and privatise the common land for private profit! In other words - perhaps not so politically correct - they were lazy, unambitious, happy-in-crap and cowardly to move out of their comfort zone. Gee, nothing has changed!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted July 28, 2011 Report Share Posted July 28, 2011 In other words - perhaps not so politically correct - they were lazy, unambitious, happy-in-crap and cowardly to move out of their comfort zone. Gee, nothing has changed!!! How come when people want to say really ridiculous and bigoted things, they always believe they're bravely battling the forces of political correctness? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted July 28, 2011 Report Share Posted July 28, 2011 How come when people want to say really ridiculous and bigoted things, they always believe they're bravely battling the forces of political correctness? Because they are essentially stupid? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted July 29, 2011 Report Share Posted July 29, 2011 Yes, I agree. The idea that the majority of deaths were accidental is true. dunno about that... hard to do a tally now but the destruction of the buffalo was deliberate act of starvation/genocide...and trading blankets of small pox victims to natives was also deliberate...the systematic extermination of the Beothuks was intentional... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Jack Posted July 29, 2011 Report Share Posted July 29, 2011 How come when people want to say really ridiculous and bigoted things, they always believe they're bravely battling the forces of political correctness? How come people who have no valid argument, pick out selected phrases/sentences from other posts, take them totally out of context, play the morality card and inevitably, ALWAYS resort to name-calling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.