The benefits of colonialism

[eyeball]

15 hours ago, I am Groot said:

All of Canada was conquered. The winners didn't need the losers to sign off on a surrender - especially since the losers were illiterate. 

The 'winners' needed a formal surrender and treaties with indigenous people to prove their occupation of stolen land was legal. Literacy had nothing to do with it.

[CdnFox]

39 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Good luck getting the Supreme Court to buy that argument.

Not really a problem   but - the difference of course is that those people all assimilated and their kids went on to have happy healthy lives and participated in building a better canada.  Just like the jews from the concentration camps who survived tended to go on and have good lives, and their kids thrived.

For SOME reason the first nations doesn't quite seem strong enough to do that yet.  But that doesn't change the fact that they were HARDLY the only group to go through that.

39 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Compared to the crap you were obviously taught? I've done just fine thanks.

LOL - sure you have kiddo Here's a gold star  

[herbie]

14 hours ago, CdnFox said:

You find the truth racist?

That is demonstrably a truth. They hadn't even discovered metal yet.  They did brutalize each other and frequently committed genocide.  They kept slaves and sold women. And had done so for thousands of years. What would make you think they still woudln't be?

Learn to distinguish truth from a personal speculation.
One so basically racist it assumes a culture is incapable of evolving. Goes hand in hand with ultra conservative ideals wishing your own culture to stop evolving.

500 years our own culture kept slaves and "owned" women as it had done for thousands of years. You saying native culture couldn't change after 500 years of mere exposure to Europeans rather than colonization?

Your viewpoint has been coloured by a colonial upbringing. The definition of what they call a 'settler' view. Stamping your feet and denying it like denying 'white privilege" doesn't change that it exists.

 

[CdnFox]

22 minutes ago, herbie said:

Learn to distinguish truth from a personal speculation.

i assume you're talking to your mirror

22 minutes ago, herbie said:

One so basically racist it assumes a culture is incapable of evolving. Goes hand in hand with ultra conservative ideals wishing your own culture to stop evolving.

I observe that it didn't evolve for thousands of years and showed no signs that it was going to.  THere's no guarantee the sun will rise in the east tomorrow, but given it's track record it's a pretty safe bet. Do you have any actual evidence that after thousands of years they were going to? No?  well there you go.

22 minutes ago, herbie said:

500 years our own culture kept slaves and "owned" women as it had done for thousands of years.

well first off i don't know who "Your" culture is but mine  sure as hell didn't.

But if you're referring to the british they sure as hell didn't own or trade women like cattle. Can't remember if they had slaves that far back but i doubt it was prevalent.

But the first nations sure did  and there's no reason in the world to think they wouldn't have continued to do so. But - we came along and said 'nope'.

22 minutes ago, herbie said:

You saying native culture couldn't change after 500 years of mere exposure to Europeans rather than colonization?

You don't get one without the other. So no colonization, no exposure. Nobody was just going to take a walk into the heart of a country this big and look around.

22 minutes ago, herbie said:

Your viewpoint has been coloured by a colonial upbringing.

 

It's coloured by facts if that's what you mean.  It's not hard to verify either.

For probably over 10,000 years first nations culture and technology didn't change all that much. The tools and such that we find that are ancient are about the same as what we find that's only just precontact.

We came along and they got metal, they got horses, they got medicine, they stopped trading their women (eventualy), they stopped making war on each other (ish.) they got guns for hunting, they got blankets to keep them warm,  their babies started to survive more, their life average went from in their 20's to in their 30's and shot up.

So  regardless of any fantasies you might have that somehow they might have done that after 10,000 years of not doing it, the fact is that europeans DID do it. And they benefit from that to this very day.

Sorry if the truth and facts are too 'colonial' for you. 

[herbie]

Did you skip every history class in school?

You don't know/not sure that Britain didn't abolish slavery until 1837 and other European nations later than that?
That women were chattel property until into the 20th century?
That there's an entire race called "Metis" who traded with natives, married and took up much of the native culture? Without 'conquering' or 'colonizing them?

 

[I am Groot]

6 hours ago, eyeball said:

The 'winners' needed a formal surrender and treaties with indigenous people to prove their occupation of stolen land was legal.

Why? The natives never needed such things when they took land away from other natives.

[I am Groot]

17 hours ago, herbie said:

Congratulations

You have just won the George C Wallace Award for the most blatantly racist post in this entire thread.

Now, now. I cut you some slack as you're clearly not a very well-educated person. Well, or very intelligent or well-read or, well, well-mannered. But anyway.

The problem with the Western hemisphere is that it lacked certain necessary ingredients to form higher-level civilizations. One of the most important ones is an animal that can be easily tamed and used to greatly improve productivity as well as provide transportation.  I know that we're used to seeing natives racing across the plains on horses shooting at the white soldiers in movies but they had no horses until the Spanish brought them here. No camels. No oxen. No donkeys. 

They also lacked easily tameable food animals, like cattle, sheep, pigs and chickens. 

Aside: there are a few breeds of sheep native to North America but despite being closely related to the ones we think of, none has ever been domesticated.

There is also a severe lack of grain crops that were easily grown/harvested and produced proper nutrition for large numbers of people.

Without all of these, and a few other things the hemisphere lacked, living is a hand-to-mouth thing and there's just no hands left to spare, nor time to spare, for specialization that develops expertise in things like building and mining, developing a written language, poetry, scientific experimentation, etc. etc. I didn't say it was the natives fault that they wouldn't have developed, but they wouldn't have, just as they never had prior to the arrival of the white man. Same goes for Africa, and for mostly the same reasons, plus a few others besides.

Edited May 29, 2023 by I am Groot

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, I am Groot said:

Why? The natives never needed such things when they took land away from other natives.

Go ask the Supreme Court. You don't imagine they and treaty negotiators pondered all the what ifs, yabuts and similar issues you're trying to raise? They dismissed them as irrelevant and silly decades ago.

Let me guess, as a conservative you've spent you're life driving thru it gazing wistfully at the rear view mirrors the entire time in haven't you?

Poor conservatives, things like reality and the difference between right and wrong will probably continue to mystify you till the day you die 

[I am Groot]

49 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Go ask the Supreme Court.

I don't respect the supreme court. I also don't respect the Trudeau constitution. I don't look to either for truth.

49 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Let me guess, as a conservative you've spent you're life driving thru it gazing wistfully at the rear view mirrors the entire time in haven't you?

Yeah, like it was two years ago in my rearview mirror all you lefties lost your minds about 'mass graves' and we still haven't turned up any. What the hell you been doing all this time? Crying?

 

 

[herbie]

Well I guess only lefties can distinguish ill formed assumptions from 'truths' then.

[CdnFox]

13 minutes ago, herbie said:

Well I guess only lefties can distinguish ill formed assumptions from 'truths' then.

Only lefties delude themselves that they can    To a leftie - an ill formed assumption that they like IS a 'truth'.

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, I am Groot said:

I don't respect the supreme court. I also don't respect the Trudeau constitution. I don't look to either for truth.

I certainly have a lot more respect for the SC and Constitution than I do Parliament.

Quote

Yeah, like it was two years ago in my rearview mirror all you lefties lost your minds about 'mass graves' and we still haven't turned up any. What the hell you been doing all this time? Crying?

I hate to shatter your illusions about all you lefties but I didn't lose my mind or cry myself to sleep at night over it. I don't feel guilty because I personally didn't do anything. I think that decades of SC rulings along with treaty and reconciliation negotiations have correctly determined that our public institutions that we as a democratic people are responsible for are guilty.

What I do feel guilty for is my apparent inability to do more to make our government more accountable having learned what a POS it's been towards so many people - which is far far away more worse than anything it's ever been towards me, and trust me I have a few bones to pick with the goddamned thing too.

These are powerful times for 1st Nations and they're accomplishing more to make the government more accountable than anyone in this country has for some time now and I truly respect them for that. 

[blackbird]

Colonialism has been a great benefit to everyone as it brought the benefits of modern society.  A few things of great benefit are health care, education, technologies and comforts such as motor vehicles, power tools, hand tools of all kinds, logging and sawmills, home construction, ships, aircraft, and government institutions that brought law and order to society.  Also the modern age brought smart phones, cable TV and computers that provide knowledge, education, and entertainment.  Also jobs that pay enough to afford all these luxuries we enjoy.  And of course the Bible and gospel, without which there is no salvation.

Edited May 30, 2023 by blackbird

[herbie]

Oh yes, those missionaries were such a benefit to those colonized. They should fall on their knees in gratitude. [/s]

[impartialobserver]

On 5/28/2023 at 4:55 PM, I am Groot said:

And which of the 'colonized' were pleasant people? Slavery and war were practiced all over Africa by local tribes. Slavery, mass murder and torture were common in the Western Hemisphere before the white man came. India was a brutal, warring shithole before the British colonized it. Who exactly was 'pleasant' back in the day?

interesting how you move the goal posts? In the example of West Africa.. who invaded whom? Did the colonizer/invader have to do this? These are simple questions that you will not answer.. you are incapable of such honesty. 

[I am Groot]

1 hour ago, impartialobserver said:

interesting how you move the goal posts? In the example of West Africa.. who invaded whom? Did the colonizer/invader have to do this? These are simple questions that you will not answer.. you are incapable of such honesty. 

Do you even know what you're talking about or just pulling on a cliche to excuse floundering instead of dealing with my response? You stated the colonizers were not pleasant people. By our own standards of today, at least. I merely put that in the context of the world in which they lived. Who invaded whom? Why, whoever had the power to do so. Invasions and wars were frequent throughout Africa prior to the coming of the White man, as was slavery. There was no such thing as respect for borders, much less human rights. Any more than there was in India prior to the coming of the Europeans. Brutality and slaughter reigned supreme. 

Your antipathy seems to be directed at the white colonizers because they were better at it than others, at least toward the end. And of course, they themselves decided the practice was not moral and so abandoned it. What other imperial colonizer or power ever did that throughout all of history? 

[CdnFox]

6 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Do you even know what you're talking about or just pulling on a cliche to excuse floundering instead of dealing with my response? You stated the colonizers were not pleasant people. By our own standards of today, at least. I merely put that in the context of the world in which they lived. Who invaded whom? Why, whoever had the power to do so. Invasions and wars were frequent throughout Africa prior to the coming of the White man, as was slavery. There was no such thing as respect for borders, much less human rights. Any more than there was in India prior to the coming of the Europeans. Brutality and slaughter reigned supreme. 

Your antipathy seems to be directed at the white colonizers because they were better at it than others, at least toward the end. And of course, they themselves decided the practice was not moral and so abandoned it. What other imperial colonizer or power ever did that throughout all of history? 

North africa had over a million white slaves for a long time. The Persians sacked everyone at one point or another.  The mongols colonized half of the world.  It was a different time back then.

[TreeBeard]

On 5/30/2023 at 10:29 AM, blackbird said:

Colonialism has been a great benefit to everyone as it brought the benefits of modern society.  A few things of great benefit are health care, education, technologies and comforts such as motor vehicles, power tools, hand tools of all kinds, logging and sawmills, home construction, ships, aircraft, and government institutions that brought law and order to society.  Also the modern age brought smart phones, cable TV and computers that provide knowledge, education, and entertainment.  Also jobs that pay enough to afford all these luxuries we enjoy.  And of course the Bible and gospel, without which there is no salvation.

Do you think advanced technology should be forced upon people without their consent?    What if they don’t want it?  And what if they wanted to stay where they were and not move?

[blackbird]

5 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Do you think advanced technology should be forced upon people without their consent?    What if they don’t want it?  And what if they wanted to stay where they were and not move?

The aboriginals want all the advanced technology.  They love it.

[TreeBeard]

55 minutes ago, blackbird said:

The aboriginals want all the advanced technology.  They love it.

Sure they did….   They loved the reserves, being kicked off their lands, the residential schools….  They should be grateful, right?

[CdnFox]

11 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Sure they did….   They loved the reserves, being kicked off their lands, the residential schools….  They should be grateful, right?

Seemed to be pretty happy with the textiles, the metal tools, the firearms, the vastly more secure supply of food, the medicines and the seriously extended life span isn't such a bad thing i guess.

[TreeBeard]

16 hours ago, blackbird said:

The aboriginals want all the advanced technology.  They love it.

Do you think all the good things could have been introduced to the local population 200 years ago without a genocide? 

[CdnFox]

10 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Do you think all the good things could have been introduced to the local population 200 years ago without a genocide? 

There hasn't been a genocide.  So yes.

Of course there were plenty of genocides committed BY the first nations against other first nations but that predates contact so not really relevant.

I think trying to judge people in hindsight is a fools game. I think people on both sides had decisions to make and did what they felt was best, and i think most of the people involved genuinely thought they were doing the right thing.  The first nations DEMANDED education, it was part of their treaty stuff.  The gov't wanted assimilation because they felt it would lead to a better life. And remember the schools weren't made mandatory til 1920 and even then there were loopholes.

I think your hypebole doesn't really help the discussion move forward.

 

[eyeball]

On 5/30/2023 at 2:18 PM, CdnFox said:

It was a different time back then.

He said wistfully.

[CdnFox]

45 minutes ago, eyeball said:

He said wistfully.

Oh for sure - back then i could have split your head open with an axe (or in your case a butter knife),  crapped in your skull and used your skin to make a blanket for my dog and sold your family into slavery and nobody would have said a thing. Nowadays if i did that i'd have to sit through the judges lecture... "Look, i totally get where you were coming from and considering his stupidity i think everyone agrees with it in concept but.. "