I'll buy 50!
Natives probably genocided whatever indigenous peoples lived in the Americas before them.
They never had an established state, raped, pillaged, genocided, and warred with other tribes; and never even set up well developed permanent settlements.
The guy probably isn't even Native, most likely a mestizo.
Natives lost, get over it.
You're never getting the land back.
We're trying to make sure we don't lose in the very same way.
Doesn't have to be fair and square.
Beads for land is a shit deal, but they did it.
And yes, I understand they were manipulated and so on and so forth, but they either accepted, or get run over by settlers and the US calvary anyway.
Damn they has sexy uniforms.
>some tribes probably did bad things
>therefore our stealing of lands, genocide and enslavement is compeltely justified
Mental gymanistics worthy of a gold medal. One thing is for certain though--natives are not getting anything back because radical changes never came from those in control but those who fought for it. Realistically though, natives and their tribes have been irreversible dispersed into faint memories of the past and were instead assimilated as yet another subjugated minority.
>changes one word of existing design
Hope long for Trump to go after him for copyright infringement? Assuming he didn't trademark the hat, so it's trademark infringement. Ohh. Maybe that's why they're calling him an "artist".
Ask the Navajo what happened to the Anasazi. The word means "enemy ancestors" in Navajo. The Navajo and other groups moved in, outcompeted them, and left them to starve and scatter during a prolonged drought.
>>some tribes probably did bad things
Every tribe, nation, and people have done bad things
>therefore our stealing of lands
Stealing and conquering are not the same thing. They lost the civilization game, and there is no going back.
There was no deliberate mass extermination of the natives.
>and enslavement is compeltely justified
Enslavement has been practiced by all people's around the world. Weather it is justified or not is irrelevant. It happened, and now it isn't. Welcome to the game of life.
>Mental gymanistics worthy of a gold medal.
There's no mental gymnastics here.
>One thing is for certain though--natives are not getting anything back because radical changes never came from those in control but those who fought for it.
Natives are not "getting it back" because they practically do not exist anymore. 90% of people claiming to be native are mestizo and the rest are drunkards who fuck their kidneys by drinking listerine.
>Realistically though, natives and their tribes have been irreversible dispersed into faint memories of the past and were instead assimilated as yet another subjugated minority.
Welcome to the vast majority of the world. At least they mostly assimilated rather than tried to retain their "culture" of warfare
Cry more you big self hating bitch.
Europeans owe nothing to the world.
I have some Native American ancestry. That's what got me started researching family history.
Eventually, I got good at it. Learned how to find primary sources - letters, firsthand accounts, photos, actual stuff that touched the people I was researching.
Also found lots of ancestors who were Scottish settlers, English migrants, and folks moving westerly in the US. Looked up their histories and the corresponding historical accounts.
Absolute truth is, apart from the "Five Civilized Tribes," once Americans started heading west, they were pretty well dealing with natives that were of ISIS-level terrorism.
We only hear about atrocities by white people. Not that in Kansas, tribes terrorized settlers or migrants by cutting out the unborn children of white women and choking the survivors on the remains. Not that men routinely had their eyes and testicles removed and swapped places for others to find.
In the US, we have a tendency to portray interracial conflicts as always having an evil oppressor (self-hating violent whitey who should now be ashamed) who was victorious over a noble minority (in-touch-with-nature Indians who cried when white men littered). Shit didn't happen like that, apparently.
By that logic, what should desperate Americans who see Mexicans pushing north at incredible expense be entitled to do?
Moreover, it wasn't mass influx in the west that caused the violence - it was ANY incursion. Many, if not most, western tribes had for centuries adopted the method of warfare between even neighboring tribes that said any trespass was to be met with kidnapping, robbery, rape, and death as a matter of right. Likewise, central American tribes at the arrival of the Spanish had an established system of brutal murder, rape, and enslavement of both trespassers and any people into whose lands they expanded.
I don't think the point is to place blame, it's simply to stop the revisionist idea that European settlement of the New World was a matter of one-sided genocidal invasion of a peaceful and childlike Utopia.
Vote Trump, obviously. But the comparison isn't completely valid I'd say. Even if there are too many criminals among them Mexicans, they're not forcing Anglo's out and they're not enslaving or killing them, nor are they forcing their own culture and way of life upon them.
>it was ANY incursion
Well, there you go.
>I don't think the point is to place blame, it's simply to stop the revisionist idea that European settlement of the New World was a matter of one-sided genocidal invasion of a peaceful and childlike Utopia.
I agree with you here. Too often is one side treated unfairly by historians. In the past it was the natives, I feel like they still are being treated unfairly, but the sugarcoating by leftist is unnecessary. The faults they had should not be shoved under the rug. However, I feel there are too many Americans who view natives as vermin who were supposed to be exterminated with no questions asked.
>Mexicans hardly terrorize the European Americans
Drug cartels, gangs, etc.
>force their way of life
Because culture kampf isn't about power dynamics anymore, it's about subversion.
>most Americans see natives as vermin
Most don't give a shit because the population of them is so damn insignificant, and the ones on the reservations are drinking themselves to death.
>We deliberately subjugated, enslaved and destroyed entire civilzations for the gain of a few
>it's justified because all it matters is that some people lost and others won
No, you really do deserve the mental gymanistc gold medal because not only do you try to justify inmoral practices while enjoying the booty, you try to whitewash it by somehow appealing to 'natural law' that is as fraud as its religious counterpart 'God wills it'.
Just face it. You're one of those history revisionist that wants no blame and only glory. You live to self-serve your narrow interests and have little concern for others that aren't part of your mental 'good guy tribe'. But this isn't an argument at all. It's just ego boosting.
>what is territorial warfare
You forget how crucial native americans were in helping and aiding the first settlers that came to the U.S. It's only much later, after forced displacement, phony treaties and massive, deliberate forms of subjugation or genocide that natives resistance grew to guerrilla warfare violence. It's as saying that ISIS carry out violent executions under the notion that ISIS was born out of a vacuum and for its seemingly irrational need for bloodlust while disregarding the whole middle eastern context from which it sprung.
>All mexicans are rapists, murderers, and drug lords
Wow buddy, it's like you're immersed in teletubbie land and believe everything fed through your gut screen. It's time to burst out of the bubble Dipsy.
>>We deliberately subjugated, enslaved and destroyed entire civilzations for the gain of a few
The number of Europeans, Turks, Chinese today far surpass the number of natives that ever existed, much less individual tribes.
This is not "the few". This is the world's most powerful civilizations.
>>it's justified because all it matters is that some people lost and others won
There is no need to justify or demonize it. It happened, it doesn't happen anymore.
Or are you the type of shithead that moralizes history into the "good, bad, and ugly"?
Europeans won, Natives lost. There is no good or bad about it.
>No, you really do deserve the mental gymanistc gold medal
You have yet to refute a single point about the history of power dynamics and conquest. You only have said
>hurr Dorr ur retard, I'm applying modern morality to historical events from 200+ years ago
>because not only do you try to justify inmoral practices
There is nothing immoral about conquest. Morals are a spook, especially when discussing history.
>while enjoying the booty
If Europeans did not conquer the Americas, the Americas might have one day been conquered by any number of other countries (china, Japan, Russia, etc.) OR they conquer us.
You're damn right I'm "enjoying the booty", just like Natives enjoyed the booty when they genocided other tribes.
You are man, and WAR is your craft.
>you try to whitewash it by somehow appealing to 'natural law' that is as fraud as its religious counterpart 'God wills it'.
There is no whitewashing needed, I'm just peeling off the plaster of your reality that you attempt to put on historical events.
>Just face it. You're one of those history revisionist that wants no blame and only glory.
I'll take "blame and glory", but not blame and no glory. Europeans conquered the Americas, and only a revisionist would say it was an immoral act. Real historians don't try to paint a biased and villified history; you do.
>You live to self-serve your narrow interests and have little concern for others that aren't part of your mental 'good guy tribe'.
First off, you're projecting again; I am not trying to service any interests, you are.
Second; I don't know what "tribe" you think I'm apart of. So you're just projecting again.
Third; If you want to discuss serving self interest, go read fucking Max Stirner.
Lastly, Your mental good guy tribe is anyone who isn't successful. You never question why they were not successful, you just scream
>I LOST, WAAA WAAA WAA
Fuck off and die.
>But this isn't an argument at all. It's just ego boosting.
I have no ego to buff. You're the one applying modern morality to history.
>>what is territorial warfare
>You forget how crucial native americans were in helping and aiding the first settlers that came to the U.S
Blown way out of proportion. You forget how much natives terrorized and killed the first settlers to the Americas (not the U.S. you historically illiterate shithead)
>It's only much later, after forced displacement, phony treaties and massive, deliberate forms of subjugation or genocide that natives resistance grew to guerrilla warfare violence
Subjugation was practiced only by the spanish, go cry to the mexicans if you want reperations. Genocide was never intentional, and conquest happens when you go to war.
Start shit get hit.
>It's as saying that ISIS carry out violent executions under the notion that ISIS was born out of a vacuum and for
This doesn't even make sense, but I know what you're trying to argue.
I'll agree with you as long as your idea is to block all immigration and trade and humanitarian from destabilized areas and implement deep ecology programs.
>>All mexicans are rapists
Where did I say this.
They stated that they
>were not hurting anyone
When they clearly are.
>Wow buddy, it's like you're immersed in teletubbie...
I don't watch TV at all.
You can stop projecting.
>modern morality to history.
Holy fucking nail on the head, anon.
The wife and I had a visitor recently, a neo-hippie liberal from California. Nice lady but full of propaganda. Whilst talking about this and that over dinner, she started defending the massive Mexican immigration (that affects firstly where she lives) by saying that it's okay because we fought and killed them and took the land from them 150plus years ago and that was just so horrible.
I say with a shrug at that point, "Well, that's how they did things back then."
And boy, does that set her off, in a hands-wringing, eyes closed fit of ill-logic, replying, "Everybody raped women all the time back then, it was normal, so does that make it okay today?"
I just stared at her, like I was coming into contact with some strange new wild animal from the jungle. There she was, justifying the past by the present, and what was normal back then with what would be socially unacceptable today....the reasoning is so looped, it's like a fucking pretzel.
>This is not "the few". This is the world's most powerful civilizations.
You seem to believe that colonization was at the benefit of the people when it served almost exclusively to enrich and support the monarchy and other oligarchs of the era while their rest of their population lived at the equivalent of a modern day slum.
The rest of the first is post is a long winded version of 'might is right' which has no categorical justification beyond the obvious statement that it happens and has happened--no analysis or understanding of the situation beyond fueling your need for bigger-than-life power fantasies.
The fact that you implicitly define 'succesful' as anyone willing to play dirty and crush anyone to get their way is very telling of the character you ultimately praise. It's not projection, it's merely the natural result of someone trying to whitewash and justify the unjustifiable.
>You forget how much natives terrorized and killed the first settlers to the Americas (not the U.S. you historically illiterate shithead)
Classic whitewash worthy of a Colgate commercial. Before Europeans even set a foot on this side of the hemisphere they already had plans for conquest and exploitation. If you read any of the early accounts this is stated clearly and without decorations. It's funny that you are willing to point the finger to the Spanish when the English and German were far worse when it came to colonial treatment of natives. And yes, despite your fantasy revisionist version of the world, many of the native deaths were intentional by deliberate spreading of diseases or other ailments for which they had no natural immunity for. What worse, the natives 'didn't start shit'--they were invidaded by people looking to pillage and nothing else. Even in your twisted version of morality, you are on the wrong.
Being too dense to understand an argument doesn't not invalidate the argument. The point of bringing to ligtht historical events is not to have a post-mortum court procedding, but to highlight and understand the conditions and mentality that brought about such atrocities to avoid them forming and happening in the future. Haven't you ever heard of the phrase "those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it"? It's a simple concept that anyone with an ounce of reason can understand.
>>This is not "the few". This is the world's most powerful civilizations.
>You seem to believe that colonization was at the benefit of the people
Did colonization not vastly improve the conditions of European proples?
To the vast majority of immigrants, moving to the new world was a huge improvement over living in mainland Europe.
>when it served almost exclusively to enrich and support the monarchy
Except that it did not. The very first settlers were fleeing religious prosecution, others were fleeing debt prisons, others were fleeing poverty. Only when it became profitable did the monarchy start to excise wealth.
From then on the monarchy TRIED TO PREVENT the further spred of colonials past the Appalachians. If anything the monarchy did a better job at a protecting natives than colonists did. Because the monarchy didn't understand the raids and savagery of the natives. Much like you dont.
>and other oligarchs of the era while their rest of their population lived at the equivalent of a modern day slum.
Most did not live in what would be called a slum, because urbanization was not a thing.
That's your biggest issue, you continue to try and compare everything in a modern sense, with total disregard for the time period. Your moronic little brain can't seem to handle that not everything is good and bad.
>The rest of the first is post is a long winded version of 'might is right' which has no categorical justification beyond the obvious statement that it happens and has happened--no analysis or understanding of the situation beyond fueling your need for bigger-than-life power fantasies.
So you can't argue a point so you dismiss it. Thank you for admitting you are wrong.
Might is not "right", because there is no "right and wrong" when discussing history beyond recent times. That is politics, not history.
>The fact that you implicitly define 'succesful' as anyone willing to play dirty and crush anyone to get their way is very telling of the character you ultimately praise.
You wouldn't say dominating the world in trade and having the highest standards of living as succesful? You would rather be a shitting, genocidal, war thirsty native?
>It's not projection, it's merely the natural result of someone trying to whitewash and justify the unjustifiable.
I don't have to justify it, it also is not unjustifiable.
It just is.
All people's did these things. Doesn't make it bad or good.
You're applying a spook of modern morality to a time period 250+ years ago.
If two species of monkies live in one area, with a limited amount of resources, and one species develops the ability to use weapons and forces the other species out, why is this unjust?
Both would parish otherwise.
Now the population grows, and they develop more technologies and need more resources, so they go find more and defeat other monkies for more resources.
Welcome to the game of life.
We're no different than any other animal competing for resources.
The even more complicated thing is were basically talking about organized humans vs. Loosly unorganized humans.
States, diplomacy, international trade and so on.
Europeans dominated the world, there's nothing bad about that.
Every people's, all people's around the world enslaved, raped, genocided, murdered, and stole things from other peoples.
That is what animals do. Compete for resources to survive and thrive.
>Classic whitewash worthy of a Colgate commercial.
You're whitewashing natives and painting them as peaceful animal loving dolls that can do no wrong.
You're literally arguing for
>Before Europeans even set a foot on this side of the hemisphere they already had plans for conquest and exploitation
A. Where are the proofs?
B. There is nothing wrong with planning to compete with other people's for resources. Today we do it in a completely different way, but that's because we're more developed. Now we do it in battles of trade rather than war.
>If you read any of the early accounts this is stated clearly and without decorations.
You're literally sounding like a tinfoil hatter.
>It's funny that you are willing to point the finger to the Spanish when the English and German were far worse when it came to colonial treatment of natives.
Spanish came for plunder, fucked a lot of natives, and then left.
They toppled the 3 most advanced civilizations in the Americas.
How are English (and Germans?) Worse.
>And yes, despite your fantasy revisionist version of the world
You mean yours.
Your entire argument is
When they were just as "bad", in your terms, if not "worse" than Europeans.
>many of the native deaths were intentional by deliberate spreading of diseases or other ailments for which they had no natural immunity for.
The spanish have only a few recorded instances of individuals doing that. By no means was it widespread or intentional.
If we did not colonize them, someone else would have, and they would have died off all the same.
Or, they would colonize us.
And we would die off.
>What worse, the natives 'didn't start shit'
Raiding settlements and killing settlers, starting shit.
>they were invidaded by people looking to pillage and nothing else.
They were not invaded, the natives had no system of state, no defined boundaries, and no means of diplomacy.
Prove they were "looking to pillage".
Because what you see are immigrants forming settlements to farm the land and grow tobacco and other products back to Europe to make a better lives for themselves
>Even in your twisted version of morality, you are on the wrong.
Here inlies your biggest problem again, I'm not applying morality, not even a symbolance of "my own morality".
>Every worldly peoples, at some point, genocided, invaded, conqoured, raped, pillaged, exploited, and harmed other peoples
What you say is
>Only Europeans ever did this, and they should be punished for it because they are evil.
When it's an absolute lie.
I'm not whitewashing anything, I'm saying it happened, yes, that doesn't mean it's intrinsically "bad"; especially given the timeperiod.
Tbh there is no point in arguing with you because your a butthurt native who can't handle that he lost.
You're probably OP too
>I'll take 50
Cringy as fuck man
You're a moron.
There is no sense applying modern morality to events that happened 250+ years ago.
You must always apply the morals of the time period.
Tell me where history was repeated upon these incidence.
"Native" Americans were doing it to themselves, too, before we came there. Genociding themselves, tribe vs tribe. We have the mass graves to prove it in the US, men women and children massacred centuries before Pale Face came.
Plus, there's evidence of all those disease outbreaks before the Europeans even landed, being brought by seals (can you believe that).
>If two species of monkies live in one area, with a limited amount of resources, and one species develops the ability to use weapons and forces the other species out, why is this unjust?
If two species of monkies live in two separate area, with enough resources, and one species develops the ability to use weapons and forces the other species out, is this not unjust?
>If we did not colonize them, someone else would have, and they would have died off all the same.
>Or, they would colonize us.
>And we would die off.
I find it hard to believe that this would have been inevitable. You put it as if people dying off for the gain of others is a very normal thing. This may be true on a small scale, but Europeans were the only ones to completely take over entire continents in this fashion.
>>What worse, the natives 'didn't start shit'
>Raiding settlements and killing settlers, starting shit.
The settlers started shit by settling there with no regard for the natives already living there.
>They were not invaded
>Prove they were "looking to pillage".
>is this not unjust
No, it's not.
>Europeans were the only ones
Wrong, Aztecs, Chinese, and Turks all did the very same thing.
>Europeans did the thing everyone else did, but better.
>they should be punished for this even though they were the ones to bring a new order of peace to the world
If I must go into Marxist dialectics and explain the difference between pre and post industrial society, and how it effects morality, global geopolitics, and diplomacy I must.
You can't apply modern morals to a more distant man. It doesn't work that way
>people don't die for the gain of others
Tell that to murderers, robbers, gangs, and warlords.
>just because it doesn't happen today doesn't mean it didn't happen back then
People killed each other all the fucking time back them. Globally.
So yes, it was a common thing to kill large amounts of people is a common thing.
>settlers started shit
land was uninhabited and undeveloped. it was there for the taking. natives started the shit.
they got hit.
to be invaded you have to have a boundary of land, an establishment, and a state. an invasion is a matter of diplomacy.
>they were here to pillage
oh yes, the pilgrims, there to pillage the land of all the immense developed wealth.
It's almost like I'm talking to a complete denialist. You call me a 'tin hatter' yet readily dismiss any well documented historical claims and the well established reality of the subjugation and near extermination of the natives for wealth and power. Read this, found in the Columbus diary from his first encounter with natives:
They brought us parrots and balls of cotton and spears and many other things, which they exchanged for the glass beads and hawks' bells. They willingly traded everything they owned... . They were well-built, with good bodies and handsome features.... They do not bear arms, and do not know them, for I showed them a sword, they took it by the edge and cut themselves out of ignorance. They have no iron. Their spears are made of cane... . They would make fine servants.... With fifty men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want.
This excerpt shows the mentality and purpose of European conquest of the americas: nothing but a defacement and exploitation of existing cultures for wealth at any cost. Why do you even think African slaves were brought to the Americas in the first place. After indians proved to not last under harsh treatment and disease, African were brought as replacement slaves. Of course, to a denialist (not even revisionist at this point), self-defense of invading forces is justification for further aggression, disregarding the original agression intended and carried for Europeans.
Now, you readily pit the blame on Spanish and expunge the English, but in fact the English were worse than the Spanish because at least the Spanish tried to integrate and convert the natives under their control (the ones that survived anyway) while the English had a strict segregationst and force displacement policy--or else. There's no even need for specific examples because anywhere you look in this history you'll see forced mass displacements or executions whenever the English decided they needed further expansion. (1/2)
It's nice to revise history to make it seem like the original settlers were just 'peaceful people trying to make a living' yet, despite your dentist beliefs, making sure to displace and appropriate what belonged to Indians was part of the strategy.
"At least one European used smallpox as a military weapon. Lord Jeffrey Amherst, commanding general of British forces in America during the Seven Years War (or French and Indian War, 1756–1763), distributed blankets from smallpox victims as a way to crush an Indian uprising and “to Extirpate this Execrable Race.”1 Amherst, at least, went on record in favor of genocide. "
What's worse, you claim "some things" happened, yet try to make it seem like they are meaningless "because it was a different period". Yet, do you realize that, as I already said once, this isn't about trying to set up court procedures to the past, but to understand and highlight the harmful mentality of the past so that these atrocities don't occur again. In fact, a lot of what happened during colonization is still being done today by colonizing states like Israel. Yes, they don't have bayonets and flashy uniforms, but it is the same level of control, domination and appropriation of land and wealth that is typical of these situations. Deliberate appropriation and destruction of cultures under self-serving agendas have the same harmful result to its victims regarldess of when they are done.
I'm done argueing with you though. Mental and moral acrobatics aside, things like
show me you're just another self-righteous mamaye speweing /pol/erina shitposter.
Columbus was a dick.
and does not represent the goals of English colonization, nor the mentality of the overwhelming majority of settlers.
Columbus only interacted with the natives if the Caribbean islands, which had less noteable warfare habits than the natives of mainland Americas.
The origional goal for Europeans was to expand and search and aquire new resources, as is required of a growing population of peoples. There is nothing unjust or wrong about it, nor is there anything especially just about it. The morality of the time allowed for the conquest and colonization of new lands, today it does not.
>The Spanish at least
The Spanish caused the death of arguably the most developed native nation's. All out of a greed for God and Glory.
>The British and so on
Expanding for more resources. Settlers developed independent of the crowns orders, the crown tried to prevent the spred of the colonies and the displacement of natives.
>You're a denialist
Sure, but only because in relation to your revisionist history, everyone except Europeans are evil and the savages are peaceful, oppressed, enslaved, and so on.
A. isolated usage, or accidental exposure.
B. The source you provided does not give proper citation to the origional source "a letter" is all it says with no link to an archival or respected historical institution
>understand and highlight the harmful mentality of the past
Yes, sure you could do that, but you're doing it in a way to make everyone except Europeans innocent, while Natives; especially the "five civilized tribes" continuously warred, genocided, enslaved, raped and killed other native tribes just as Europeans colonized the Americas.
If you're trying to prove intent of genocide, or enslavement, you're not going to find solid evidence of a widespread conspiracy to eliminate the entire native population of the Americas (except maybe the spanish in central America).
Israel is an example of Nazi Germany in a Jewish state.