Neocolonialism

[DoomBunny]

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.

The divide is not so clear as one might think.

Yes, colonial warfare was often brutal with few prisoners taken, attacks on civilians, etc...

The thing is that this was pretty natural. Neither side was really in a great place to fight a clean war, the conflict was between two populations, often asymmetric in nature, and unbound by formal codes of conduct. The Indians didn't get much mercy, but then again, neither did Custer and co.

 

[Yakman]

The divide is not so clear as one might think.

Yes, colonial warfare was often brutal with few prisoners taken, attacks on civilians, etc...

The thing is that this was pretty natural. Neither side was really in a great place to fight a clean war, the conflict was between two populations, often asymmetric in nature, and unbound by formal codes of conduct. The Indians didn't get much mercy, but then again, neither did Custer and co.

Custer and Co. were on the back end of a decades long running massacre of the sioux and cheyenne people. they got what was coming to them - and it was what, 80 armed men?

boo hoo.

 

[DoomBunny]

Custer and Co. were on the back end of a decades long running massacre of the sioux and cheyenne people. they got what was coming to them - and it was what, 80 armed men?

boo hoo.

Custer was one example amongst many. Also, as I previously noted, the Sioux were about as peace loving as they were fans of Nascar.

 

[Yakman]

Custer was one example amongst many. Also, as I previously noted, the Sioux were about as peace loving as they were fans of Nascar.

Once they got guns and horses and the Europeans had shown up.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

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.

Europeans got off the boats and just psychotically killed for killing sake? Get real.

We are getting near Halloween, are you writing the script for some bad slasher flick in which the Pilgrims ate the Indians for Thanksgiving?

 

[HuzzButt]

Europeans got off the boats and just psychotically killed for killing sake? Get real.

We are getting near Halloween, are you writing the script for some bad slasher flick in which the Pilgrims ate the Indians for Thanksgiving?

By the end of the colonial era they didn't get off the boats.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

Custer and Co. were on the back end of a decades long running massacre of the sioux and cheyenne people. they got what was coming to them - and it was what, 80 armed men?

boo hoo.

Custer is an extension of the policies set by Grant, Sherman and Sheridan; the heroes you FREQUENTLY have claimed built an army out of nothing to march down and free the Black Man from oppression. They cannot be both virtuous liberators guaranteeing equal rights for all AND genocidal maniacs. These two wars are linked, and fought by the same individuals. Take two big steps back and look at the far larger picture. Violence is a means to an end, it is not an end unto itself, in this instance.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

By the end of the colonial era they didn't get off the boats.

That is completely irrelevant to the point.

Besides, its untrue.

Greatly simplified: Westward Expansion in the United States is driven primarily by the slow, steady, influx of people immigrating to the New World to escape the oppressive class systems of Europe. Certainly, once they were here, they built homes and raised families. Each wave of expansion is the result of more and more people getting off more and more boats in addition to the gradual increase in the domestic population. More people needed more land; and for centuries, there was always more land to the West.

 

[HuzzButt]

That is completely irrelevant to the point.

Besides, its untrue.

Greatly simplified: Westward Expansion in the United States is driven primarily by the slow, steady, influx of people immigrating to the New World to escape the oppressive class systems of Europe. Certainly, once they were here, they built homes and raised families. Each wave of expansion is the result of more and more people getting off more and more boats in addition to the gradual increase in the domestic population. More people needed more land; and for centuries, there was always more land to the West.

The land was made available by the US government to the US citizens and immigrants both by granting the potential settlers free or practically free land and by guaranteeing, if not extensively their protection by the US army and Government. This was neither a slow and steady process nor driven by the "Oppressive European Class system", the latter being one of the more quaint misconceptions of the American narrative. The settling of the west was primarily an American concern, the subsequent urbanization of the west can however be attributed in great part to European immigrants.

My reference pertained to the colonial policies in Africa and the Wests approach to China and Japan. While I don't think that Genocide was a primary political concern, the men in power and the men in the field were all fully aware that shooting people dead incidentally kills them...

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

The land was made available by the US government to the US citizens and immigrants both by granting the potential settlers free or practically free land and by guaranteeing, if not extensively their protection by the US army and Government. This was neither a slow and steady process nor driven by the "Oppressive European Class system", the latter being one of the more quaint misconceptions of the American narrative. The settling of the west was primarily an American concern, the subsequent urbanization of the west can however be attributed in great part to European immigrants.

It is a multi-century process you have distilled down to a snapshot of one tiny part of the endgame. Try again.

 

[HuzzButt]

It is a multi-century process you have distilled down to a snapshot of one tiny part of the endgame. Try again.

Are you including the colony which rebelled against "Oppressive European Class system" in those several centuries of settlement driven by immigrants escaping the "Oppressive European Class system"?

The US expansion westward took place in less than a century. The US expansion westward is a snapshot, a snapshot that came to be out of determined political action.

 

[gagenater]

Evident

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.

Honestly, I thought that the folks around here were interested enough in history to be aware of the fact that the native americans not merely had the desire to conduct genocides, but did them as soon as they had the means to accomplish them. Evidently I was wrong, so here comes the evidence.


Archaeological evidence of a pre columbian genocide in Colorado
http://www.crisismagazine.com/2010/the-genocide-of-american-indians-by-american-indians

The entire assemblage comprises 14,882 human skeletal fragments, as well as the mutilated remains of dogs and other animals killed at the massacre site — Sacred Ridge, southwest of Durango, Colo….

The unearthed bones and artifacts indicate that when the violence took place, men, women and children were tortured, disemboweled, killed and often hacked to bits. In some cases, heads, hands and feet appear to have been removed as trophies for the killers. The attackers then removed belongings out of the structures and set the roofs on fire.

And possibly the saddest part of all:

At least two… separate studies have come to [the conclusion that] the genocide victims at Sacred Ridge belonged to an ethnic group that was different from that of other nearby populations.

An excellent book on the well documented and extenssive Iroquois use of genocide to expand their political and economic power

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14623520120097215

The destruction of the Huron by the Iroqouis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaver_Wars

Prewar genocide of the St Lawrence Iroquoian peoples - not documented by Europeans except in their presence and absences:

The expeditions of French explorer Jacques Cartier in the 1540s made the first written records of the Native Americans in North America. French explorers and fishermen had traded in the region near the mouth of the St. Lawrence River estuary a decade before then for valuable furs. Cartier wrote of encounters with a people later classified as the St. Lawrence Iroquoians,[5] also known as the Stadaconan or Laurentian people, who occupied several fortified villages, including Stadacona and Hochelaga. Cartier recorded an ongoing war between the Stadaconans and another tribe known as the Toudaman, who had destroyed one of their forts the previous year, resulting in 200 deaths.

Wars and politics in Europe distracted French efforts at colonization in the St. Lawrence Valley until the beginning of the 17th century, when they founded Quebec in 1608. When the French returned to the area, they found the sites of both Stadacona and Hochelaga abandoned, completely destroyed by an unknown enemy.[6]

The Iroquois destroy the Huron in a decisive campaign after several previous years of inconclusive warfare. The Huron are all either killed, or enslaved and absorbed by the Iroquois

n 1648, the Dutch authorized selling guns directly to the Mohawk rather than through traders, and promptly sold 400 to the Iroquois. The Confederacy sent 1,000 newly armed warriors through the woods to Huron territory. With the onset of winter, the Iroquois warriors launched a devastating attack into the heart of Huron territory, destroying several key villages, killing many warriors and taking thousands of people captive, for later adoption into the tribe. Among those killed were the Jesuit missionaries Jean Brebeuf, Charles Garnier, and Gabriel Lallemant. Each is considered a martyr of the Roman Catholic Church. The surviving Huron fled their territory to seek assistance from the AnishinaabegConfederacy in the northern Great Lakes region. The Odaawaa Nation (Ottawa) temporarily halted Iroquois expansion further northwest. With the Hurons' withdrawal, the Iroquois controlled a fur-rich region and had no more native tribes blocking them from the French settlements in Canada.[18]

European diseases had taken their toll on the Iroquois and neighbors in the years preceding the war, however, and their populations had drastically declined. To replace lost warriors, the Iroquois worked to integrate many of their captured enemy by adoption into their own tribes. They invited Jesuits into their territory to teach those who had converted to Christianity. One priest recorded, "As far as I can divine, It is the design of the Iroquois to capture all the Huron...put the Chiefs to death...and with the rest to form one nation and country".

http://www.histori.ca/champlain/page.do?subclassName=CloseUp&pageID=238

Earlier smaller scale genocides of the Huron. The great genocide of 1648 detailed above wiped out the survivors who were noted as having fled here.

The year 1642 was marked by a series of disasters among the Huron, which eventually led to the collapse of the whole society. The southern Iroquois stepped up their attacks on the Huron trade routes and began to attack Huronia itself. Although the Huron and Iroquois spoke the same language and shared the same culture, they had become bitter enemies once the Europeans arrived. The Huron established relations with the French, and the southern Iroquois with the Dutch and later the English.

In traditional warfare, small bands would attack with the purpose of capturing individuals or of disrupting trade routes. In the 1640s, newly armed with guns, the Iroquois began to change their tactics. Now they began to launch massive, well-organized attacks with the aim of destroying whole villages. In 1649 the Iroquois turned their full attention to Huronia itself. On March 16 an army of 1,000 Seneca and Mohawk, who had spent the winter in Ontario, descended on the Huron village of St Ignace. Only 3 Huron escaped. The invaders then moved on to the village of St Louis and put it to the torch.

Even though the Iroquois left a few days later, the Huron were seized with terror. The impossible had occurred. The Iroquois had invaded in huge numbers and at a time of year when they had never attacked before. The Huron took flight. Some 8,000 refugees fled and Huronia ceased to exist.

The tribes of the Niagra Penninsula between present day Ontario and Michigan get the treatment. They were attacked because they were harboring fugitive Hurons

The Iroquois attacked the Neutral Nation in 1650. By the end of 1651, they had completely driven the tribe from traditional territory, killing or assimilating thousands.[18] At the time, the Neutrals inhabited a territory ranging from the present-day Niagara Peninsula, westward to the Grand River valley.[20]

http://www.tolatsga.org/hur.html

A rather complete history of the Huron, featuring their destruction by the Iroquois, as well as the genocide of several other tribes which associated with the Huron.

Eventually the remnant survivors of the Huron and the Neutral Nations formed a new tribe the Wynadote which was much smaller in number than the originals, and located much further west, and which stayed out of Iroquois claimed regions, which by now stretched across most of the Northeast of what would later become the United states from Minnesota, to the Huron river valley of New York, south to western Virginia, and then west to Illinois.

Genocide of the Pawnee by the Sioux

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_Canyon

This was an attempted genocide that was broken up by the appearance of US forces which were a peacekeeping force between the two tribes.

 

[Yakman]

Custer is an extension of the policies set by Grant, Sherman and Sheridan; the heroes you FREQUENTLY have claimed built an army out of nothing to march down and free the Black Man from oppression. They cannot be both virtuous liberators guaranteeing equal rights for all AND genocidal maniacs. These two wars are linked, and fought by the same individuals. Take two big steps back and look at the far larger picture. Violence is a means to an end, it is not an end unto itself, in this instance.

actually, they can.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

actually, they can.

No. It is one or the other, unless you shroud them in an origin myth of your own making. Which I think you have done. You are an intelligent person, but everyone has a blind spot, and that one is yours.

Take a big step back, remember Lincoln worked for the Railroads and was put in power to further their cause, and the whole damn thing makes a lot more sense.

 

[Henry IX]

There is a big difference between Nazi occupations of Austria (bullied democratic),

Only democratic in the Democratic Rebublic of North Korea sense of the term...

 

[DoomBunny]

Once they got guns and horses and the Europeans had shown up.

After trading with the Europeans yes. However, as anyone with a modicum of sense will tell you, selling a man a gun does not make you a murderer.

This incidentally is another aspect commonly misrepresented; trade with the Indians is often portrayed as a case of the Europeans handing over some faulty goods to naive natives who couldn't tell a quality product from a collection of old beads, and in return handing over everything they had. This is nonsense, Indians were in fact shrewd traders who benefited in many cases from trade with Europeans. Cultural differences however often meant that both sides disagreed on what a particular deal actually meant.

 

[Yakman]

No. It is one or the other, unless you shroud them in an origin myth of your own making. Which I think you have done. You are an intelligent person, but everyone has a blind spot, and that one is yours.

Take a big step back, remember Lincoln worked for the Railroads and was put in power to further their cause, and the whole damn thing makes a lot more sense.

people are complicated. they can do a good thing, and then they can do a bad thing. this is not unheard of.

 

[Yakman]

After trading with the Europeans yes. However, as anyone with a modicum of sense will tell you, selling a man a gun does not make you a murderer.

oh no, of course not. but it makes it a LOT easier to murder someone. this in turn has effects on societal structures.

 

[Czert]

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.

well, if you look at indions once they got horses and guns they realy happily adapted "genocidal europen style" raids against otheer tribes very happily. so that means that they realy did have desires, just not means.

 

[IsadorBG]

Given that countries that avoided colonisation tend to be more wealthy than their colonised counterpart, I feel that the "white man burden" argument to be somewhat lacking.

Especially for cases like India which was basically the British cash cow and really did not need more "civilisation" than any of their free neighbor.

As for Chinese investing in Africa ? Good. Very good. If locals like it sometimes more than western investment then clearly Chinese are good at making bussiness.
And African having choices and multiple investors can only be a good thing.