you posted this in the wrong topic. this topic is about how the white nations are unique in their genocidal colonial invasions. maybe you could find a topic about civil wars or cross border incursions to post this in
this is the beauty of this topic. we still see the same regurgitated mantras that the printed press flooded literature with over the millenia but now it doesnt fly. we have independent observers, the internet, ppl who do it for free at no cost (apart from broadband) to help us all see the full story of how the white nations have trodden all over every indigenous nation, massacred them, enslaved them, stole their wealth, stole THEIR IDENTITIES and written themselves into history as the GREAT WHITE MESSIAH. ...updated your files Game Over
Really? Persia's invasion of Greece was a "cross border incursion"? Genghis Khan's invasion of Rome was a "civil war"? Maybe you'd like to study a little history before weighing in on what "white nations" have done. And I'd add that white nations are unique in that unlike all the other colonial empires, they were mostly unsuccessful at committing genocide. Almost all the peoples invaded by European nations still exist, unlike many of the peoples invaded by Muslims, Chinese, Japanese, etc., who wiped out whole nations, women & children included. There are more AmerIndians living today than lived in North America when the Pilgrims landed in 1640. There are more aboriginals living today than lived in Australia in 1788. There are 600,000 Maori alive today when there were no more than 100,000 alive in 1800. For a genocidal people, the Europeans are extraordinarily bad at it.
Unrealized wealth does not truly exist. If you don't spend it, lend it or give it away it might as well not exist. By way of comparison, The Europeans turned their wealth into goods and technology. The Indians kept their Neolithic tech, turning their potential wealth into nothing.
"When the White Man came, we had the land and they had the Bibles. They said we should close our eyes and pray. We did and when we opened them, they had the Land and we had the Bibles."
Also a longer life expectancy, an absence of ritual human sacrifice, a better, more reliable food supply, and a higher standard of living.
Boo hoo. "In "Two Cheers for Colonialism", Dinesh D'Souza argues that colonialism has unfairly gotten a bad name in recent decades. Much of the modern analysis of colonialism comes from scholars in anticolonial or postcolonial studies, and Mr. D'Souza takes issue with much of their analysis and their "irrational prejudice" against colonialism. Specifically, he argues that there is nothing uniquely Western about colonialism, that the West did not become wealthy because of colonialism, and that the descendants of colonialism "are better off than they would be if colonialism had never happened" -- even if the colonial powers were not seeking such betterment. Citing himself, as a native of India, as an example, he writes: "Virtually everything that I am ... [is] the product of a worldview that was brought to India by colonialism. I am a writer, and I write in English. ... My understanding of technology, which allows me, like so many Indians, to function successfully in the modern world, was largely the product of a Western education that came to India as a result of the British. So also my beliefs in freedom of expression, in self-government, in equality of rights under the law, and in the universal principle of human dignity -- they are all products of Western civilization."" "Dinesh D'Souza: You are missing my broader point, which is that the West did not grow rich by plundering the resources of its colonies. True, those resource contributed to the wealth of the West, but the real reason for Western affluence is the Western development of the institutions of science, democracy, and capitalism. This is not to[ ]justify the hardships imposed on non-Western people, but some colonial powers, like Spain and Portugal, imposed tremendous hardships and yet never grew rich. Other European countries that never had colonies grew affluent. The assumption that explo(i)tation is the sole or even the primary cause of Western affluence remains unproven." http://sites.fitnyc.edu/users/Patrick_Yanez/Readings/Globalism/OnD'Souza'sArticle.htm
How magnanimous of the crown, to allow the natives to keep that land, while confiscating the East coast.
Persias empire stretched from Persia to Greece with one cross border incursion after the next. White nations are unique in their ambition to control the whole globe by means of genocide and or subjugation with barely any cross border incursion which would imply no determination to understand the host culture
spoken like a true banker. of course you would say wealth not spent is not wealth, thats speculator spiel 101. speculators are just gossips, no substance parasites off people with real wealth (knowledge)
The Indians had less wealth than the Europeans, period. Potential wealth is not realized wealth. If you want to consider knowledge as wealth, the Indians were positively impoverished compared to the rest of the world, all of which was more advanced than they.
nonsense, Kemet had way more wealth than white nations ever had and they never went on a genocidal rampage because they had knowledge beyond any white nations comprehension.
BS. Ancient Egypt had less wealth than the US at the present time. Further, at no time was Egypt part of North America, which is what this thread is about. They were not restrained from conquest because of their great knowledge, but rather restrained from conquest by their lack of knowledge, notably of government. Several times in the early periods their empire fragmented because it was simply too large to rule effectively, Here's a list of the offensive wars of Egypt. Seems they liked to - as you put it - export death: c. 3050BC - campaign against the Nubians c. 2670BC - several expeditions against the Sinai peninsula in which the inhabitants were subdued (and presumably many were enslaved, a common fate for losers) c. 1900BC - two expeditions against Nubia. They conquered to the second cataract. c. 1880BC - conquest and looting of Iuai and Iasy in Asia. Tribute recorded coming from Asia and Kush. c. 1860 - 1850BC - 4 campaigns to Nubia, 1 campaign to Southern Levant. c. 1850BC - short Nubian campaign. There's more of this stuff. I just stuck with the truly ancient data. It appears the Egyptians were just as ruthless and determined to dominate their fellow man as any other branch of the Human race. Seriously, dude. You should have known this stuff before posting your line of rubbish.
Eh, no, that was me mocking you. We don't have to take responsibility for what the white man did because a) we didn't do it, and b) our ancestors didn't do anything thousands of others hadn't done millions of times before.
Where did you hear that? According to the CIA World Factbook Native Americans make up 0.9% of the American population. The total American population is about 330 Million. That would mean there are only a little over 3 million Native Americans left in the United States. According to research the Native American population was estimated to be as high as 112 Million in 1492 (as low as 8 million). https://uwpress.wisc.edu/books/0289.htm William M. Denevan writes that, "The discovery of America was followed by possibly the greatest demographic disaster in the history of the world." Research by some scholars provides population estimates of the pre-contact Americas to be as high as 112 million in 1492, while others estimate the population to have been as low as eight million. In any case, the native population declined to less than six million by 1650. Even with the most conservative estimate the population of Native Americans has been cut by more than half since European colonists came to America. By the most liberal estimate the population was cut by nearly 75%. Native American genocide is a reality any way you look at it. They were displaced and annihilated over the course of hundreds of years to the point where they make up less than 1% of the population.
Except that you are confusing two different sets of numbers. The number of 112 million seems ridiculously high to me, but I specified NORTH America. Your numbers come from Mexico, etc., down to the tip of SOUTH America. And the total number of AmerIndians in 1492 in NORTH America never numbered more than 5 million, and had fallen to 500K by 1640. It is now back up to around 6.6 million, not 3 million, and that's just in the United States, not counting Canada. Population 6.6 million The nation's population of Native American and Alaska Natives, including those of more than one race. They made up about 2.0 percent of the total population in 2015. https://www.infoplease.com/history/native-american-heritage/native-americans-by-the-numbers
Click your stopwatch and see if it will run backwards -- if it does take yourself back in time into the distant and murky past, teach those people the "truth" of the 21st century, and in that backtracked teaching see if you can make the world more perfect for when it later arrives at the present time. It's a shame to waste the past.
This thread is NOT about the Natives. It is about the colonization of the USA. If you wish to discuss the Natives I suggest you start another thread.
Looks like you need to start your own thread. Your post is not about colonization of the USA, which is what I want this thread to be about.
LOL the natives are directly part of the topic, given they're the ones effected by 'Colonization of the USA.' But OK, I'll play along... Most of the attrocities committed by colonists can be demonstrated to have originated from the governments that many or even most of those colonists were attempting to escape by coming to the New World. Missionaries, conquistadors and explorers were sent/funded by their respective establishments overseas. Most of the settling or 'colonization' was done by folks trying to get away from the brutal authoritarianism of Eurasia, and most often, were caught up in the conflict created by those regimes attempting to assert and solidify their authority in the New World. Even most of the traders were attempting to break free of the monopolies set up by those same regimes (ex. the EITC), only to eventually be forced out of business or cooperate with the state-sanctioned and -affiliated mega-corporations of the day.
I don't think my source specified Central and South America. I also think the CIA World Factbook is more credible than your source. We would really need to look at the methods for estimating the population size of Native Americans in 1492. There can be no doubt that their population was decimated and there are barely any of them left.
Your source specified the "Americas", plural, North & South. From Wikipedia: "In 1976, geographer William Denevan used the existing estimates to derive a "consensus count" of about 54 million people. Nonetheless, more recent estimates still range widely.[4] Using an estimate of approximately 37 million people in Mexico, Central and South America in 1492 (including 6 million in the Aztec Empire, 5-10 million in the Mayan States, 11 million in what is now Brazil, and 12 million in the Inca Empire), the lowest estimates give a death toll due from disease of 80% by the end of the 17th century (nine million people in 1650)." (That would give a count of 17 million north of the Rio Grande, but that number is very high considering there were NO cities of any size in North America, unlike in Mexico and points south. Most estimates of North American Indians prior to Columbus range between 2.1 and 7 million, with 5 million being the most common figure given. That would also conform to the death rate due to European disease, there being about 500K left by 1640. If there had been 17 million prior to Columbus' arrival, they would have had to suffer a 97% death rate.) The Info Please numbers came from the US census while the CIA Factbook's numbers are guestimates. Barely any of them left? You're joking, right? From Wikipedia again: Indigenous peoples of the Americas Total population 70 million+ Regions with significant populations Mexico 33.7 million[1] Bolivia 9.8 million[2] Peru 6.0 million[3] Guatemala 5.8 million[4] United States 5.2 million[5] Ecuador 4.5 million Canada 2.13 million[6] Chile 2.1 million[7] Colombia 1.3 million[8] Brazil 900,000[9] Argentina 550,000[10] Venezuela 524,000[11] Honduras 520,000[12] Panama 460,000[13] Nicaragua 444,000[14] Costa Rica 118,000[15] Paraguay 116,000[16] El Salvador 70,000[17] Guyana 80,000[18] Greenland 51,000[19] Belize 40,000 (Maya)[20] France (French Guiana) 19,000[21] Suriname 12,000–24,000 Dominica 2,000[22] Trinidad and Tobago 1,500[23] Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 2,000[24] Cuba 4,000[25]
You want the thread to be about how evil the white man is, and he isn't. I pointed out why. Try responding to that.
