Europeans were not as poor as anyone else. They were, in fact richer than the Indians on average. That the Europeans improved the lives of many Native Americans. How did you lose this point?
I wasn't talking about internecine wars. I was talking about technologies and philosophies. Africans hadn't developed beyond the tribal stage when the Europeans had gotten to the nation/state stage. Guess which stage has more important ideas.
Really? As if the Nipponese didn't massacre their way across China and the South Pacific. As if the Hutu people didn't lay waste to the Tutsis when they had the chance. Fact of the matter is that people are people and everybody acts as if they were people.
The Mongols slaughtered people across continents.. The Huns did the same. The Moors, and Turks, ditto. Stop thinking the Europeans are somehow unique in their expansionism. they weren't. Where they were unique is in their success. The ideas they spread were their chief and most long lasting export. Your complaints are the most visible evidence of that. Those came from Europe, believe it or not. When you condemn the originators of your belief system, you indict your system of belief.
Why are you unhappy with hashing the truth, Ritter. Some of the far right have posted hundreds of the "DNC founded the KKK" posts, which are lies, of course.
nope. indians were far far richer than whites. thats why whites went in search of indian gold, because europeans lived in squalid poverty
wrong. europeans were living in caves when africans were building colossus temples and penning the very philosophy that whites eventually copied
what does japan invading china and rwandans fighting eachother have to do with whites invading and massacring across ALL continents on earth?
what has that got to do with europeans invading and massacring EVERY indigenous nations on the planet?
That's why they lived with Neolithic technology! I wasn't talking about potential riches, I was talking about realized wealth. The land was rich; the Indians were not.
Even if what you say is true (cite your source), the Africans failed to follow through and the Whites did follow through. Witness history. Subsaharan Africa remained a Bronzze and Stone age continent until it was opened up by Whites. There is a reason it is called the "Dark Continent" and it has nothing to do with skin color.
It has to do with your claim of moral superiority over the Whites. It so happens that every race takes advantage of its strength when it can. And Whites brought some good to the places they went. For instance, stopping human sacrifice by the Aztecsand stopping the practice of suttee in India.
which is precisely why this topic should be top billing for ever. this topic highlights the very reason why "africans didnt follow it through" because their continent was robbed, raped and pillaged by barbarian european tribes whose practice of genocide, torture and human sacrifice still runs through their blood today (colonization of america) as it did then. Pure wickedness or as the Bible states "wicked Devils" when talking about the Greeks.
how can you claim whites stopped human sacrifice when today their armies are literally maiming hundreds of thousands of women and children for NO REASON. my "claim of moral superiority" over whoever is based on sound judgment and not on skin colour (iam what you would call white) . white nationalism is a poor position to build an argument from.
What did they do with it? Did they turn it into currency? No, they turned it int a barter item. Wealth derives from what an asset is used for as much as from its intrinsic value. In this case, it was traded for less than its value.
Ritual human sacrifice is far different from 'maiming hundreds of thousands of women and children for NO REASON' (cite your source).
Remember before in that other thread when you tried to make the claim that chattel slavery was a practice unique to white Europeans? That was hilarious. Do that one again.
You forgot much. -natives attacking peaceful colonies -natives enlisting colonies as allies against other natives -natives trading land to colonists for high tech tools -natives allying with colonies against other colonies -natives taking natives as slaves and warprizes -natives taking colonists as slaves and warprizes -natives sacrificing natives to their religions -natives sacrificing colonists to their religions -colonists defecting to native tribes Your attempt to paint colonists as evil and natives as victims is disingenuously biased. They were as diverse in their ethics and intentions as the colonists were.
Is there a point to this self-flagellation? I would point out that the spread of disease among the AmerIndian population was not (by and large) intentional but accidental. And the consequence was that the AmerIndian population of the North American continent north of the Rio Grande dropped by 90%, from around 5 million to about 500K when the English settlers started spreading westward. And since North American Indians had no concept of land ownership, it's difficult to say that the English/American settlers actually took anything. Some AmerIndian tribes in the eastern states had defined territories, but the western AmerIndians were almost all nomads and had no defined territory to speak of. Could our ancestors have treated the natives better than they did? Of course. Should we (today) feel guilty about what our ancestors did? Of course not. I would further point out that war & conquest are not unique to Europeans, but are a common feature of every human population. From the Australian aborigines: "The Murngin (now Yolngu) in NE Arnhem Land during 1920s practiced a deadly warfare that placed it among the world’s most lethal societies. The then-rate for homicides of 330 per 100,000 (which Jarrett suggests could be grossly under-estimated) was 15 times the 2006-07 "very remote national Indigenous rate" of 22, and 300 times the 2006-7 national non-Indigenous rate. That Murngin rate was worse than in Mexico’s present Ciudad Juarez drug capital (300 homicides per 100,000), and more than three times worse than the worst national current rate (Honduras)." "Other black-on-black massacres include accounts from anthropologist Bill Stanner of an entire camp massacre, an Aurukun massacre in the early 20th century, Strehlow’s account of the wiping out of the Plenty River local group of Udebatara in Central Australia, and the killing of a large group of men, women and children near Mt Eba, also in Central Australia." http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/benn...e-long-bloody-history-of-aboriginal-violence/ From the Filipinos: "The Rajahnate of Cebu fought against the Moro pirates, known as magalos (literally "destroyers of peace"), from Mindanao.[6] The islands the rajahnate was in, were collectively known as Pulua Kang Dayang or Kangdaya (literally "[the islands] which belong to Daya"). Sri Lumay was noted for his strict policies in defending against Moro raiders and slavers from Mindanao. His use of scorched earth tactics to repel invaders gave rise to the name Kang Sri Lumayng Sugbo (literally "that of Sri Lumay's great fire") to the town, which was later shortened to Sugbo ("scorched earth")." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warfare_in_pre-colonial_Philippines From the Japanese: "The military history of Japan chronicles a vast time period over three millennia from the Jōmon 1000 BCE into the modern day. It is characterized by a long period of clan warfare until the 12th century CE. This was followed by feudal wars that culminated in military governments known as the Shogunate. Japanese history is distinguished by that the military class with the Shōgun ruled Japan for 676 years from 1192 till 1868 CE. The Shōgun and samurai warriors were de facto at the apex of the Japanese social structure." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Japan From the Inuits and AmerIndians: "For a hundred years in the 17th and 18th centuries, Europeans posted at fur trading forts on both sides of Hudson Bay and James Bay recorded in tedious detail protracted instances of warfare between the local Cree Indians and the Inuit just to the north. A recent book chapter examines the course of the inter-ethnic violence during that period; it speculates on the causes of the warfare and posits reasons why it probably ended." From the ancient Egyptians: "Ancient Egyptian warfare started around 1500 BC and were mainly caused by the Egyptians wish to expand their lands and political control in the region. The first known war was one with the Canaanite coalition that occurred along the coastal lands Israel, Lebanon and Syria and into Turkey. The most well known battle of this war was the Battle of Megiddo where Pharaoh Thutmose III sent 10,000 to 20,000 men to face an army of 10,000 to 15,000 led by the King of Kadesh and the King of Megiddo. This battle happened in 1457 BC. The Egyptians camped close to the Canaanite forces and as morning broke the Egyptians surprised the Canaanite in attack, the overwhelming strength of the Egyptians broke the will of the Canaanite and they fell into full retreat. The Egyptians killed 83 Canaanite and captured just fewer than 400 as prisoners, the outcome of the battle meant that the Egyptians needed to lay siege to the city, which they did for 7 months before the city fell in surrender. Egypt won the war and its lands grew to encompass the region within its boundaries." http://www.thefinertimes.com/Ancient-Wars/ancient-egyptian-war.html As I've previously noted, there probably isn't too much land anywhere on earth that hasn't been fought over besides Iceland and a few Pacific islands that were uninhabited before the ancestors of the current occupants arrived. The idea that Europeans were uniquely or especially evil in their wars & conquests is pure nonsense. They were uniquely successful, that is all.
All true and factual but none of this is reflected in our teaching of history nor in our cultural memes which is why so many find our foundational ideas to be as shallow as the ink they were written on.
they could make golden toilet seats with it for all icare, the point being they had it in abundance and the white invaders had nothing of their own so they had to go and steal it off every body
