Neocolonialism

[Andre Bolkonsky]

The topics all sort of combine. The policies of colonial nations cause improvements or declines in the living standards of the people who were colonized to a great degree. Opinions matter too. To the extent that the people in the colonies and the colonial powers think that it was a good or bad idea, is certainly a part of the 'experience'. A colonized people who had an excellent living standard but who hated the process of being colonized are going to have very very negative thoughts and feelings about the process of colonialism regardless of what the material outcome was.

The Colonization of Texas is great for modern Texans, and Texas is a tremendous asset to the world economy; but civilizations that endured for centuries had to be displaced for us to be here now. It's a complicated issue, and you are correct that opinions vary wildly between different demographics.

 

[gagenater]

The Colonization of Texas is great for modern Texans, and Texas is a tremendous asset to the world economy; but civilizations that endured for centuries had to be displaced for us to be here now. It's a complicated issue, and you are correct that opinions vary wildly between different demographics.

The US policy was more one of genocide and replacement than colonization, so it's not a good comparison. Only a tiny number of the 'orginal' inhabitants and their descendants survived the process long enough to have an opinion about it.

 

[Yakman]

it's very complicated when you two have the same avatar.

 

[Czert]

The US policy was more one of genocide and replacement than colonization, so it's not a good comparison. Only a tiny number of the 'orginal' inhabitants and their descendants survived the process long enough to have an opinion about it.

well, no. us policy was to subjucate everyone who resisted own expansion. period.
hint - there was fierce wars between original indians for territory before europeans arived.
reason why so many indioans died were simply of european diseases, which killed nearly hundert times more indiaons than european firearms.

 

[Yakman]

hint - there was fierce wars between original indians for territory before europeans arived.

eh. not really, at least not in the continental usa.

yeah, there were wars, but they weren't genocidal exercises in mass slaughter and terror, like the europeans introduced.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

it's very complicated when you two have the same avatar.

What's more odd is Gage recently moved from somewhere in the oil fields around Louisiana to less than twenty miles from me. We have never met off this board. We share some common ground, but are probably not that much alike. But there you have it; spend enough time on a board and you can draw a pretty good picture of most of the regulars. (If he looks out his window at THIS EXACT MOMENT, the B-17 from the air show at Ellington Field is buzzing Beltway 8)

I have a thing for St. George. I'd go back to the Scottish Flag but I remember the days when the Scottish Flag was so popular you always had to read the names on any of Fire_Unionists threads.

 

[gagenater]

well, no. us policy was to subjucate everyone who resisted own expansion. period.
hint - there was fierce wars between original indians for territory before europeans arived.
reason why so many indioans died were simply of european diseases, which killed nearly hundert times more indiaons than european firearms.

Just because the US didn’t have to kill a huge number of people to conduct a successful one doesn’t mean that genocides didn’t take place. They were halting and regional in scope but they happened many times, purposely and well documented.

 

[gagenater]

eh. not really, at least not in the continental usa.

yeah, there were wars, but they weren't genocidal exercises in mass slaughter and terror, like the europeans introduced.

That's debatable. At one time your statement was thought to have been generally true, but a more thorough investigation of the history of the Iroquois, the Comanche and the Apaache (to name some of the best documented cases) show they were each responsible for several genocides, some of them within the era in which they were documented by Europeans. It's not PC to talk about or research that sort of thing these days though.

 

[fredinno]

only that Austria was its own country. Crimea was sovereign territory of Ukraine. the invasion part was similar, though the Austrians could have resisted the germans, unlike the situation with Ukraine and Russia.

Ukraine could have declared war on Russia over Crimea- and Russian intervention in the Donbass War- They probably wouldn't have lasted long, but it would have been considered a valid caucus belli.

Both Austria and Ukraine knew the best solution was to do nothing- public opinion in the regions affected were not on their side- and full-scale war would either result in no intervention from Great Powers, or World War.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

Just because the US didn’t have to kill a huge number of people to conduct a successful one doesn’t mean that genocides didn’t take place. They were halting and regional in scope but they happened many times, purposely and well documented.

In particular, look at the actions of Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan after the War of the Rebellion had ended. Sherman's ideas of Racial Equality would have been right at home in Wewelsburg Castle: 'Kill 'em all' was his mantra. A lot of human beings (and the Buffalo on which they depended) were hunted down by the Yankee Army and flat out murdered in the name of the Almighty Railroads to allow full, unfettered, Western Expansion.

 

[Yakman]

That's debatable. At one time your statement was thought to have been generally true, but a more thorough investigation of the history of the Iroquois, the Comanche and the Apaache (to name some of the best documented cases) show they were each responsible for several genocides, some of them within the era in which they were documented by Europeans. It's not PC to talk about or research that sort of thing these days though.

eh. the europeans brought weapons and methods which enabled the spread of european-style psychotic violence.

remember, these are people who were "counting coup". they were essentially cavemen before the europeans arrived.

 

[gagenater]

eh. the europeans brought weapons and methods which enabled the spread of european-style psychotic violence.

remember, these are people who were "counting coup". they were essentially cavemen before the europeans arrived.

Yep that’s the exact version of PC history I was referring to.

 

[Yakman]

Yep that’s the exact version of PC history I was referring to.

it's also true to some extent. now, we can't really know what was going on before the europeans showed up, but these were not super warlike people. they just didn't have the technology to do that.

now, down south in mexico land, yeah, bunch of genocidal cannibal maniacs. the carib were eating their way through the arawak when columbus arrived (exaggeration). but north america? eh. i'm sure there was some uncouth stuff happening, and the noble savage is pretty well a myth, but equating isolated violence with the mass exterminations that the europeans wrought on north america is just silly.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

it's also true to some extent. now, we can't really know what was going on before the europeans showed up, but these were not super warlike people. they just didn't have the technology to do that.

now, down south in mexico land, yeah, bunch of genocidal cannibal maniacs. the carib were eating their way through the arawak when columbus arrived (exaggeration). but north america? eh. i'm sure there was some uncouth stuff happening, and the noble savage is pretty well a myth, but equating isolated violence with the mass exterminations that the europeans wrought on north america is just silly.

Why is the Noble Savage a myth? Rousseau glorified it. Franklin milked it for all it was worth and that image in France is huge as it directly leads to the birth of the United States. This doesn't nullify the power behind the stories.

The Native Americans were not technologically gifted, this is true. Spiritually, it's another story. Their power is in their bodies and their skill. In Texas, we say it's not the arrow, but the Indian, you have to worry about. They have great spiritual power, live in harmony with nature and the land. They are men who live life, not sitting behind desks counting money. Put them in jail, they die. They walk a spiritual path to life rather than being trapped by mere flesh and blood.

There are territorial wars, and the rise and fall of nations. You have very peaceful tribes, some fairly warlike tribes, and most tribes have some skill at raiding and killing their enemies if only at skirmishers levels. You have the literary ideals of Chingashgook and Magwa, and the real life examples of Sitting Bull, Geronimo and Tecumseh. Good men, and bad men. And men who are hard to explain, like the Prophet, Tenskawatakawa, with his Zero Year curse. There's a lot of juice in these stories.

But for the Railroads to come, and the great Western Expansion to happen, they had to go. Violently. The Yankee army, whose origin myth is rising up to liberate the Black Man - because all men are created equal - had no problem being the hammer hitting the anvil and pounding the Red Man out of existence except as museum exhibits. Which tells you all you need to know about Yankee propoganda.

 

[Czert]

yeah, there were wars, but they weren't genocidal exercises in mass slaughter and terror, like the europeans introduced.

well, you cant make them slaves it you extreminate them, right ? and indian slave was worth more than dead indian.

Just because the US didn’t have to kill a huge number of people to conduct a successful one doesn’t mean that genocides didn’t take place. They were halting and regional in scope but they happened many times, purposely and well documented.

well, one must ask, they killed them for just killing or did they killed them because they resisted expansion and maked troubles ?

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

well, you cant make them slaves it you extreminate them, right ? and indian slave was worth more than dead indian.

There is no slavery among Europeans of Native Americans. In one very famous trial early in Colonial history, a slaver owner tried to pass off his slave as mullato, and the slave was freed by the courts when she proved her (Nagasset?) heritage.

In New Spain and South America, there is a very, very complicated relationshiop. Technically, as a Roman Catholic country, Spain could not own slaves. The reality is the indigenous peoples were slaves in everything but name. Here, your comment is spot on.

Native Americans can, do, and will own slaves captured in war. Then they acquire African Slaves from the Europeans in places. That infamous old bastard, Albert Pike, will have a large Indian contingent fighting for the Confederacy at the critical battle of Pea Ridge in Northwest Arkansas.

well, one must ask, they killed them for just killing or did they killed them because they resisted expansion and maked troubles ?

On the Great Plains, the Native Americans rely on the buffalo in large part to survive. The buffalo cannot exist with the railroad, therefore the Indian cannot exist with the railroad. They were killed for resisting expansion, driven onto Reservations, and allowed to drink themselves into obscurity. (Until they began opening Casinos)

 

[fredinno]

it's also true to some extent. now, we can't really know what was going on before the europeans showed up, but these were not super warlike people. they just didn't have the technology to do that.

now, down south in mexico land, yeah, bunch of genocidal cannibal maniacs. the carib were eating their way through the arawak when columbus arrived (exaggeration). but north america? eh. i'm sure there was some uncouth stuff happening, and the noble savage is pretty well a myth, but equating isolated violence with the mass exterminations that the europeans wrought on north america is just silly.

Just because they lacked the tech, doesn't mean they weren't warlike. Militarism is a mode of thought, not a technology.

Plus, Europeans brought guns when they traded with the Natives. The only way to prevent guns and smallpox from getting into the Americas and killing huge portions of the Native population is literally to never discover the Americas- since the very act of discovering it opened the door to trade.

 

[olm]

Tribal societies aren't particularly effective in a total war, especially then they lack horses. You will probably have some raiding and pillaging kind of stuff, but not much permanent conquest or mass extermination.

 

[DoomBunny]

On the plains at least, warfare between native tribes normally took the form of squabbles over hunting grounds. The best way to describe it is that each tribe had an area pretty firmly under its control, with no-mans land in between each tribe. Borders were of course vaguely defined at best.

Warfare tended to happen when one tribe went hunting in the no-mans land and ran into another tribe, with both fighting to stake their claim on it. The objective wasn't necessarily victory, often just to get what you came for (a good hunt) and then leave. That being said, some tribes took things a lot further. The Souix for example spent the decades before the settlers arrived systematically driving other tribes out of their lands, hence why they ended up being pretty damned unpopular.

 

[Yakman]

Just because they lacked the tech, doesn't mean they weren't warlike. Militarism is a mode of thought, not a technology.

Plus, Europeans brought guns when they traded with the Natives. The only way to prevent guns and smallpox from getting into the Americas and killing huge portions of the Native population is literally to never discover the Americas- since the very act of discovering it opened the door to trade.

there's "warlike" and then there's "genocidal mania uber-death psycho pan murder forever".

yeah, the natives americans, like all people everywhere, had disputes and sometimes those were settled by fighting, so yeah, at times, they were the former.

the europeans who showed up to the new world, those guys were the latter.