Were europeans "in the right" for conquering the native peoples of the americas?
I think so. Though, "in the right" is a tough phrase to use. I just think it's natural human behavior and shouldn't necessarily be admonished.
I'm in a native american studies class at uni right now and I'm getting a little tired of the victimization complex these natives have, especially the super biased prof.
>muh laura ingalls wilder
>muh genocide
>muh sterilizations
Yes, it's all bad. Yes, killing millions isn't good, but it's been the way of the world since its inception and native americans shouldn't be special snowflakes simply since they were essentially "left alone" until 1492.
Conquering is the human way. There was no way that it was going to be a peaceful assimilation, I mean, just look at Africa. We arguably did far worse to them.
Although, the reservation system and how natives have been handled in the last 100 years or so could be improved. They are given plenty, though, and drinking alcohol and being generally degenerate is definitely not how their people sound when they claim "muh noble ancestry".
What are /his/'s thoughts on the matter? I kind of wrote this on a whim and didn't organize my thoughts. I think native culture and history is for the most part pretty neat, though.
Nice meme.
>>760233
First off you need to be a bit more specific on which area. French are arguably innocent, Brits were cunts, and the Spanish were actually pretty good. Americans are their own things and not really Europeans, and almost 100% cunts to them
It can't really be justified, but only accepted. Unfortunately some peoples just get trampled over by more dominant cultures/civilizations, it's happened before. The Indians who did get it good integrated and became a part of society.
>>760233
While there is a probably too much victimization of the natives, I think it's mostly backlash against the prevailing way the history books typically treated Natives before the 50's, as backwards savages killing all the good honest white settlers, with any hope in the next century maybe we'll see a more even tone given to events that doesn't marginalize Native Americans, but doesn't demonize the European settlers either, after all the story of the America's is the same as everywhere else, a bunch of people screwing each other over for their own best interest. However, I don't think you could say the Euro's were in the right. Something being human nature or the way things were always done, does not make it right, while I'll agree that the colonization of America was generally more tolerable than Africa, I don't think you can't morally justify it using modern morality.
>They are given plenty, though, and drinking alcohol and being generally degenerate is definitely not how their people sound when they claim "muh noble ancestry".
I think you're experience with modern Amerindians is biasing you towards history, you should be aware of that and try and curb it.
>>760264
>the Spanish were actually pretty good.
Encomienda
>>760233
>the way of the world since its inception and native americans shouldn't be special snowflakes simply since they were essentially "left alone" until 1492.
Funny thing is that they fought and displaced each other. Go to a good museum and take a look at the collection of native weaponry.
>tribe A lives somewhere
>tribe B comes and wipes out A
>tribe C comes and wipes out B
>tribe D comes and wipes out C
>Whites come, wipe out most of D and put the rest into a reservation
OY VEY HOW DARE YOU DO THIS TO D YOU WHITE CUNT THIS WAS ALWAYS OUR LAND I SWARE ON ME MUM THE GREAT SPIRIT TOLD ME SO NOW SHUT UP AND PAY REPARATIONS SO I CAN BUY MORE LISTERINE
>>760266
OP here
Good point, I should avoid using "in the right". I also am not denying it wasn't brutal or gratuitous, but just... the way of things. I dunno. I suppose I got the demonization vibe from the class I'm in. Marginalization isn't the answer either, you're correct.
Thanks for the heads up about current natives vs history. It's hard to reconcile the two, though.
Well its not like the Native Americans went to Europe and exterminated its peoples and took their lands.
I mean if anyone has a right to be a victim its the Native Americans.
They were minding their own business when they were invaded.
>>760372
Taking unoccupied territory isn't invading.
>>760372
And by minding their own business you mean they were busy slaughtering other natives.
>>760399
>>760372
I was reading the book "Waterlily" for class. It's about a Dakota woman and her tribe(s) on the South Dakota plains. They literally go fight just because they feel like it.
"war party? yeah sure. Let's go kill some people."
Not saying it's any worse than any other people on the planet, but they certainly we're peacefully coexisting with other tribes and living in utopian societies.
>>760410
**weren't, not we're
>>760372
>minding their own business
Why did the tribes have warriors?
>>760271
Which was ended
At what point do we consider the europeans in america actually being americans?
I ask this because "permanent european settlers in america doing bad things" sounds fishy to me. Why not call them americans? Unless one might want to deflect blame away from themselves.
t. Finn, ergo I have no stake in this.
>>760383
The Americans pushed the natives off their land, if the natives resisted, they were killed. It wasn't taking unoccupied land.
>>760399
Yes, some did fight each other, some were friends with each other. They were pretty much acting like any early human civilization. Within the context of North amd South America, they were minding their own business.
>>760557
Don't get carried away. There weren't wall to wall natives form coast to coast.
>>760525
Creation of/absorption into a sovereign state I suppose. Not just exploring and settling territory.
>>760565
>minding their own business.
So it's just fine and dandy that they could war upon and kill each other as long as no Europeans were involved?
>>760233
It's not your land if you can't keep it.
Greeks, Italians, Jews, Persians, Arabs and others can lay claims to Israel/Judea/Palestine/Samaria/Judah/etc. What matters is whether or not you can act on those claims.
>>760233
>conquest and war is the natural state of man
Nice edge there
>>760597
Name one human culture that has NEVER gone to war in their entire history.
>>760597
War IS the natural state of mn though
Because nature IS war
Every species is struggling to survive. Kill or be killed. Law of the jungle.
When we rise above it and are able to think and act beyond basic necessities, we have civilization and peace.
And when we declare war, we become uncivilized again.
>>760583
Exactly, those fucking Rhodesians and Afrikaners had it coming
Might makes right
>>760583
>It's not your land if you can't keep it.
Really? Not only do you confuse claim ownership with actually owning one, but you also spouted edgy shit like that.
>>760620
Hobbes pls go
>>760623
Doesn't mean it's correct. In fact, judging how it's more harmful than beneficial for both parties would mean that you warlike folks are the stupid ones. Every single wars happening during the Early Modern Era caused massive debts, suffering, and political instability. There's no need to be at war, at least in physical conquest sense, instead of economic, cultural, or scientific competitions.
>>760653
Added to the fact that the history of modern era is the history of arranging for balance of power and redrawing maps (geopolitics). If people really thought that wars were good, they wouldn't have done that.
>>760653
saying it's not correct doesn't change anything. You can't deny people are naturally selfish and or greedy and that leads to war. Your view is nice but it ultimately doesn't change anything.
>>760639
Afrikaners?
>>760639
salty dutch detected, oofda
