Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 01-28-2020, 07:09 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 27,423
Quote:
Originally Posted by slash2k View Post
Then why didn't India have an Industrial Revolution even earlier, to produce the cotton in the first place?
They didn't need to have one. They were producing an adequate supply of fabric for the existing domestic market (and an extensive trade network on their own terms) using artisanal and small-scale manufacturing methods.

It wasn't enough for the English demand, at the English preferred prices, though. Hence the EIC's conquests and empire building.
  #52  
Old 01-28-2020, 07:16 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 27,423
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam View Post
this wasn't restricted to India.
No-one said it was.
Quote:
Helped to finance isn't the same as creating the industrial revolution.
The industrial revolution wouldn't have happened as it did without the finance (or the competitive element).

You're not a believer in anything as silly as the inevitability of progress, are you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam View Post
So how do you account for places like Canada and Australia and New Zealand.
You mean all the places not as advanced or urbanized as India to start with, and where the native populations were mostly aggressively displaced by colonists?
Quote:
how is that theft?
In what world is murdering the natives and taking their land or labour by force not theft?

Last edited by MrDibble; 01-28-2020 at 07:18 AM.
  #53  
Old 01-28-2020, 08:38 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 27,423
I do have to wonder what different outcome the OP expects from this thread compared to every other one he's started along the same "Rah, Rah! Imperialism!" lines.
  #54  
Old 01-28-2020, 11:02 AM
Telemark's Avatar
Telemark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Just outside of Titletown
Posts: 23,533
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
I do have to wonder what different outcome the OP expects from this thread compared to every other one he's started along the same "Rah, Rah! Imperialism!" lines.
Yeah, it does appear to be a pattern.
  #55  
Old 01-28-2020, 12:23 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 84,436
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam View Post
So how do you account for places like Canada and Australia and New Zealand. There has to be a consideration that these places may be controlled in perpetuity, or that them having some measure of responsible self government would assauge local antagonisms whilst still exporting the good which the empire needs, so again, how is that theft?
You could ask the descendants of the native populations of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand if they feel they benefited from being part of the British Empire. They could tell you plenty about how empire equals theft.
  #56  
Old 01-28-2020, 05:07 PM
Ryan_Liam is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 4,291
Quote:
MrDibble
The industrial revolution wouldn't have happened as it did without the finance (or the competitive element).
So the industrial revolution happened because people were willing to put up money for it, gee, like every other progression, it doesn't mean it was entirely financed by slavery or the EIC profits shipped back.

Although mechanization dramatically decreased the cost of cotton cloth, by the mid-19th century machine-woven cloth still could not equal the quality of hand-woven Indian cloth, in part due to the fineness of thread made possible by the type of cotton used in India, which allowed high thread counts. However, the high productivity of British textile manufacturing allowed coarser grades of British cloth to undersell hand-spun and woven fabric in low-wage India, eventually destroying the industry.

Quote:
You're not a believer in anything as silly as the inevitability of progress, are you?
I'm a believer that British engineering and investment wasn't wholly dependent on finance from India.

Quote:
You mean all the places not as advanced or urbanized as India to start with, and where the native populations were mostly aggressively displaced by colonists?
Isn't that just reducing the native populations to passive actors with no agency? It also ignores the fact that native groups often allied with various colonial powers to fight other native groups or the Royal proclamations creating native buffer states. This coinciding with the fall of the population due to their lack of immunity to diseases from Europe.

Quote:
I do have to wonder what different outcome the OP expects from this thread compared to every other one he's started along the same "Rah, Rah! Imperialism!" lines.
I'm looking for a more in-depth discussion, I know you're quite sensitive about this, but I'm in great debates, and well, I wanted to debate about it.

Quote:
In what world is murdering the natives and taking their land or labour by force not theft?
When they have no immunity to the old world diseases the people carry and it depopulates entire areas?

Quote:
Little Nemo
You could ask the descendants of the native populations of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand if they feel they benefited from being part of the British Empire. They could tell you plenty about how empire equals theft.
You sure about that?

"During the American Revolution, the newly proclaimed United States competed with the British for the allegiance of Native American nations east of the Mississippi River. Most Native Americans who joined the struggle sided with the British, based both on their trading relationships and hopes that colonial defeat would result in a halt to further colonial expansion onto Native American land. The first native community to sign a treaty with the new United States Government was the Lenape."
__________________
If you can read this signature, you've scrubbed too hard.
  #57  
Old 01-28-2020, 05:43 PM
Andy L is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 7,141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam View Post
You sure about that?

"During the American Revolution, the newly proclaimed United States competed with the British for the allegiance of Native American nations east of the Mississippi River. Most Native Americans who joined the struggle sided with the British, based both on their trading relationships and hopes that colonial defeat would result in a halt to further colonial expansion onto Native American land. The first native community to sign a treaty with the new United States Government was the Lenape."
Given the choice between English who were actively trying to steal their land, and English who weren't, the Native Americans sided with the less imperialistic ones. Surely if imperialism was good for the Natives, they would have jumped at the chance to ally with the US, right?
  #58  
Old 01-28-2020, 06:13 PM
Ryan_Liam is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 4,291
Quote:
Andy L
Given the choice between English who were actively trying to steal their land, and English who weren't, the Native Americans sided with the less imperialistic ones. Surely if imperialism was good for the Natives, they would have jumped at the chance to ally with the US, right?
You're making the presumption that I'm stating imperalism was good.
__________________
If you can read this signature, you've scrubbed too hard.

Last edited by Ryan_Liam; 01-28-2020 at 06:13 PM.
  #59  
Old 01-28-2020, 06:22 PM
Andy L is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 7,141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam View Post
You're making the presumption that I'm stating imperalism was good.
Not at all. You seemed to be suggesting that Native American alliance with less-imperialistic forces indicated that Native Americans did not oppose imperialism - and I disagreed with that. Whether or not you feel imperialism is good isn't relevant.
  #60  
Old 01-28-2020, 07:34 PM
Ryan_Liam is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 4,291
Quote:
Not at all. You seemed to be suggesting that Native American alliance with less-imperialistic forces indicated that Native Americans did not oppose imperialism - and I disagreed with that.
Again, this is another presumption on the basis the Native Americans were not imperialistic themselves. They just opposed one form of imperialism.
__________________
If you can read this signature, you've scrubbed too hard.
  #61  
Old 01-28-2020, 07:39 PM
Andy L is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 7,141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam View Post
Again, this is another presumption on the basis the Native Americans were not imperialistic themselves. They just opposed one form of imperialism.
Progress. You agree with Little Nemo that Native Americans opposed (some) imperialism.
  #62  
Old 01-28-2020, 08:42 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 84,436
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam View Post
You sure about that?
Yes, I'm sure about that. What do you think happened?

Do you think Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are mythical places that don't exist? Do you think these lands were uninhabited? Do you think the local natives are still running those countries? Do you think the locals natives voluntarily gave these lands over to the British?

Here's what happened. Natives lived in these countries. Europeans showed up and took the land from the natives.

Seriously, what part of this are you disputing?
  #63  
Old 01-28-2020, 09:46 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 1,831
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
In what world is murdering the natives and taking their land or labour by force not theft?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam View Post
When they have no immunity to the old world diseases the people carry and it depopulates entire areas?
'It wasn't theft, Officer! Yes, I moved into this house, burned half its contents, and shipped most of the rest off across the ocean; but it's not theft because most of the family who'd lived here had just died and the survivors were too sick to stop me!'
  #64  
Old 01-28-2020, 09:56 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
'It wasn't theft, Officer! Yes, I moved into this house, burned half its contents, and shipped most of the rest off across the ocean; but it's not theft because most of the family who'd lived here had just died and the survivors were too sick to stop me!'

'It wasn't theft, Officer! Yes, I moved into this house, burned half its contents, and shipped most of the rest off across the ocean; but it's not theft because the guys living there had stolen the house from the previous tenant and killed them all, But they had had stolen the house from someone else, who had also stolen the house.
  #65  
Old 01-29-2020, 12:35 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 27,423
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam View Post
I'm a believer that British engineering and investment wasn't wholly dependent on finance from India.
You don't think it's the reason British engineering won out over, say, French or German?
Quote:
Isn't that just reducing the native populations to passive actors with no agency?
No.
Quote:
It also ignores the fact that native groups often allied with various colonial powers to fight other native groups
...like they had a choice? Blaming the victims doesn't reduce the fault of the prime assaulter by one single iota. Tu quoque is a bullshit argument.
Quote:
This coinciding with the fall of the population due to their lack of immunity to diseases from Europe.
The decimation from disease doesn't erase the murder and enslavement. Murders that continued well into the 19th and even 20th centuries.
Quote:
I'm looking for a more in-depth discussion, I know you're quite sensitive about this, but I'm in great debates, and well, I wanted to debate about it.
You're having exactly the same debate you have every couple years or so. What stunning new insight are you going to provide? It isn't the OP's "It's not theft if you murder them into submission first", or your arguments about India. You've made those exact arguments before.
  #66  
Old 01-29-2020, 05:21 AM
Ryan_Liam is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 4,291
Quote:
MrDibble
You don't think it's the reason British engineering won out over, say, French or German?
Nope, British engineering is or was, a product of the culture of circumstance in the British isles which contributed to the creation of inventions which spurred the industrial revolution.

Quote:
...like they had a choice? Blaming the victims doesn't reduce the fault of the prime assaulter by one single iota. Tu quoque is a bullshit argument.
It's not victim blaming, again, you're reducing native peoples to passive actors in their own history. Every group of people in history usually makes alliances and pacts with people they like or dislike for their security/advancement.

Quote:
The decimation from disease doesn't erase the murder and enslavement. Murders that continued well into the 19th and even 20th centuries.
Didn't dispute that, in fact, I haven't disputed that whatsoever, so I'll say this, what is it when the native population is wiped out by disease by accident and the territory is unpopulated?

Quote:
You're having exactly the same debate you have every couple years or so. What stunning new insight are you going to provide? It isn't the OP's "It's not theft if you murder them into submission first", or your arguments about India. You've made those exact arguments before.
I'm here to discuss the merits of how the concept of all empire is equal to theft,
however, if you're this sensitive about discussing a topic I'm interested in, then don't waste your time, it's that simple.
__________________
If you can read this signature, you've scrubbed too hard.

Last edited by Ryan_Liam; 01-29-2020 at 05:22 AM.
  #67  
Old 01-29-2020, 05:29 AM
Ryan_Liam is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 4,291
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Yes, I'm sure about that. What do you think happened?

Do you think Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are mythical places that don't exist? Do you think these lands were uninhabited? Do you think the local natives are still running those countries? Do you think the locals natives voluntarily gave these lands over to the British?
I think it's a multifaceted answer layered with nuance and not a simplistic reply. Colonisers went to these places, alot of native populations died from diseases contracted from them, which reduced the populations further, and then this depopulated alot of the areas which were later settled by people from Europe. Mixed in with various wars and massacres this contributed futher to the reduction of the population.
__________________
If you can read this signature, you've scrubbed too hard.
  #68  
Old 01-29-2020, 06:02 AM
Urbanredneck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 8,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by don't ask View Post
Yesterday was Australia Day here. It celebrates the white settlement of the country on that date in 1788.

However descendants of the people living here at the time see it slightly differently - Invasion Day protests held across nation and in London to challenge Australia Day date.
It always has amazed me that the Japanese, Chinese, Filipinos or other peoples had not taken over Australia before the British came.

Now as for the event in question, I can see how an indigenous group being angry their land was stolen but the other group can celebrate their ancestors work to build up and develop Australia.
  #69  
Old 01-29-2020, 06:09 AM
Urbanredneck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 8,191
All groups have done this.

Take the Crow Creek Massacre where one tribe of Native Americans massacred the members of another tribe. this occurred in the 1300's well before
Columbus.
  #70  
Old 01-29-2020, 06:50 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 27,423
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam View Post
Nope, British engineering is or was, a product of the culture of circumstance in the British isles which contributed to the creation of inventions which spurred the industrial revolution.
Naah. No financial impetus, no revolution.
Quote:
It's not victim blaming
Yes, it is.
Quote:
, again, you're reducing native peoples to passive actors in their own history.
No, I'm not. And "passive actors" is an oxymoron, really.
Quote:
Every group of people in history usually makes alliances and pacts with people they like or dislike for their security/advancement.
So what?
Quote:
what is it when the native population is wiped out by disease by accident and the territory is unpopulated?
There's no such place. Reduced population is not unpopulated. This is the Myth of the Empty America, and it's a lie. Yes, America was significantly depopulated by disease. Yet European settlers encountered some Native Americans everywhere.

So Empire consists of kicking sick people while they're down and then robbing them, instead of taking their stuff after a fair fight. That still doesn't make it "not theft".
Quote:
I'm here to discuss the merits of how the concept of all empire is equal to theft,
however, if you're this sensitive about discussing a topic I'm interested in, then don't waste your time, it's that simple.
I'm just waiting for you to come up with a new argument, given the ones you've just recycled were already demolished years ago.

But nice try at accusing me of argumentum ad passiones, there. I mean, it's obviously bullshit, but well done, you.

Last edited by MrDibble; 01-29-2020 at 06:54 AM.
  #71  
Old 01-29-2020, 06:57 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 27,423
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
All groups have done this.

Take the Crow Creek Massacre where one tribe of Native Americans massacred the members of another tribe. this occurred in the 1300's well before
Columbus.
Do you know the meaning of the word internecine ? This has got precisely bugger all to do with empires.
  #72  
Old 01-29-2020, 08:37 AM
Crane is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,184
Ryan Liam,

What do you mean by empire?

Are native territorial disputes imperial?
  #73  
Old 01-29-2020, 11:12 AM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 1,831
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
'It wasn't theft, Officer! Yes, I moved into this house, burned half its contents, and shipped most of the rest off across the ocean; but it's not theft because the guys living there had stolen the house from the previous tenant and killed them all, But they had had stolen the house from someone else, who had also stolen the house.
It wasn't theft, Officer, because the householder's great great grandparent was a thief, and therefore everybody and anybody's entitled to steal from all of their descendents, forever and ever!

-- waitaminute, my multigreats grandparent was a thief too? and so was at least one ancestor of everybody human? Why does this court even exist? There can't possibly be any such thing as theft! Quick, let me loose so I can go home and sit on top of my stuff if any of it's still there, I clearly have no business calling the cops on anybody who wants to take it!
  #74  
Old 01-29-2020, 11:44 AM
Crane is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,184
Ryan Liam,

A case in point: The Pedro Armendaris grant in central New Mexico was given by Spain to Armendaris in 1820. The grant is very large, about 600 square miles. The treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo requires that these grants cannot be sub-divided. Today the ranch is owned by Ted Turner,

In the history of the ranch there have been various squatters and groups of squatters. These have been evicted because their occupation is theft of the owners rights. Title to the ranch has been consistently confirmed by courts. All the way back to Gov. Melgares in 1820.

The Spanish claim is based on the 1493 edict of Pope Alexander VI. All of the titles back to and including Melgares were between two parties for land described by title. But the Spanish claim was one sided and not specific and did not involve a title - because the Spanish did not even know it existed. No second party agreed to the transfer of ownership. Unless, perhaps, it was God.

In one fell swoop they stole it.

I do not know that there are any modern implications of this fact, except we should recognize it as theft because it is. Spain stole it from the Indians and we stole it from the Mexicans.

Last edited by Crane; 01-29-2020 at 11:46 AM.
  #75  
Old 01-29-2020, 12:56 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
It always has amazed me that the Japanese, Chinese, Filipinos or other peoples had not taken over Australia before the British came.

....
Nothing there, at first glance.
  #76  
Old 01-29-2020, 01:01 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
Do you know the meaning of the word internecine ? This has got precisely bugger all to do with empires.
So when the Aztec EMPIRE conquered all the other tribes, killing many, enslaving many and sacrificing a good number on altars- that was "internecine" and had nothing to do with 'empires"?

And there were two different cultures there that clashed over farming lands, it doesnt fit "Definition of internecine
1: of, relating to, or involving conflict within a group"

Do you know the meaning of the word?
  #77  
Old 01-29-2020, 01:03 PM
Snarky_Kong is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 8,533
If I break into someone's house, kill them, and then leave with the TV it's not actually theft because dead people can't own things.
  #78  
Old 01-29-2020, 01:16 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 84,436
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
So when the Aztec EMPIRE conquered all the other tribes, killing many, enslaving many and sacrificing a good number on altars- that was "internecine" and had nothing to do with 'empires"?
No, not at all. The Aztecs had an empire. They stole land from other people. It was no different than when the Spanish stole land from the Aztecs.

Lots of Native Americans had empires. They stole land from other Native Americans long before the Europeans arrived. And then the Europeans stole land from them.
  #79  
Old 01-29-2020, 01:20 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 84,436
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam View Post
I think it's a multifaceted answer layered with nuance and not a simplistic reply. Colonisers went to these places, alot of native populations died from diseases contracted from them, which reduced the populations further, and then this depopulated alot of the areas which were later settled by people from Europe. Mixed in with various wars and massacres this contributed futher to the reduction of the population.
No, it really is that simple. You just don't like the answer.

And, as other people have pointed out, your "depopulation" story isn't what happened. Native populations were reduced by disease but they weren't eliminated. There were still natives living in the lands when Europeans showed up. So the Europeans did not take over unoccupied land; they stole the land from the people who were living there.
  #80  
Old 01-29-2020, 01:31 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 1,831
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
So when the Aztec EMPIRE conquered all the other tribes, killing many, enslaving many and sacrificing a good number on altars- that was "internecine" and had nothing to do with 'empires"?
It's yet another example of an empire engaging in theft and murder. That doesn't make it not theft and not murder. And 'somebody else enslaved you first' doesn't make it not slavery when a later empire does it, either.
  #81  
Old 01-29-2020, 01:46 PM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 27,423
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
So when the Aztec EMPIRE conquered all the other tribes, killing many, enslaving many and sacrificing a good number on altars- that was "internecine" and had nothing to do with 'empires"?
Sorry, where was I talking about the Aztecs?
Quote:

And there were two different cultures there that clashed over farming lands
That's not what the actual scientists studying the site think. Perhaps you were ... let's say confused ... by the references to earlier Siouxan culture strata at the start of the cite. Maybe you want to reread it - the whole thing, this time, not just the bits that you think are an easy gotcha.
Quote:
it doesnt fit "Definition of internecine
1: of, relating to, or involving conflict within a group"

Do you know the meaning of the word?


The word "internecine" was a quote from his own cite.
  #82  
Old 01-29-2020, 05:09 PM
TimfromNapa is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crane View Post
Ryan,

The argument - extortion of my neighbors' property creates an entitlement to recover my costs - is not relevant to the OP.

The OP poses two issues - is it theft and a value judgement of the quality of government.

Were the governments of central America worse than that of Spain? I don't see much difference between them. Both engaged in war, torture and religious human sacrifice. Both were orderly, god fearing societies. The only difference is that the Spanish deported resources while the Aztecs used them locally.

By what authority did Spain control central America?
By authority of the Christian God, of course.
  #83  
Old 01-29-2020, 05:14 PM
TimfromNapa is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
No, not at all. The Aztecs had an empire. They stole land from other people. It was no different than when the Spanish stole land from the Aztecs.

Lots of Native Americans had empires. They stole land from other Native Americans long before the Europeans arrived. And then the Europeans stole land from them.
Yes, the Aztec Empire was part of the continuum of empires in that region. However, a least they were engaged in conflict in their own neighborhood and on pretty even terms with their adversaries. Oh, and they did not attempt to completely annihilate the cultures of their foes.
  #84  
Old 01-29-2020, 05:30 PM
Ryan_Liam is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 4,291
Quote:
MrDibble
Naah. No financial impetus, no revolution.
You really believe that BS don't you?

Have a read of this, and get back to me, thanks.

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

Quote:
Yes, it is.
No it's not, I've not blamed the Native Americans for anything, I've just stated they were not passive in their circumstances.

Quote:
No, I'm not. And "passive actors" is an oxymoron, really.
Fair enough, then they were not background actors in their own circumstances.

Quote:
So what?
So you're asking for a Utopian ideal, it's not gonna happen.

Quote:
There's no such place.
Garbage, Barbados became depopulated and then colonised with indentured Europeans and African slaves.

Quote:
Reduced population is not unpopulated. This is the Myth of the Empty America, and it's a lie. Yes, America was significantly depopulated by disease. Yet European settlers encountered some Native Americans everywhere.
Doesn't mean areas of colonisation were not without people. Emphasis on some.

Quote:
So Empire consists of kicking sick people while they're down and then robbing them, instead of taking their stuff after a fair fight. That still doesn't make it "not theft".
How can they "rob" them if nobody is left alive in that particular area?

Quote:
I'm just waiting for you to come up with a new argument, given the ones you've just recycled were already demolished years ago.
Lol what? What argument did I have 'demolished' Years ago? I don't have an argument, I'm exploring the concept through discussion, of which you are taking highly personally.

Quote:
But nice try at accusing me of argumentum ad passiones, there. I mean, it's obviously bullshit, but well done, you.
No need for me to try when it's blatantly obvious you are.
__________________
If you can read this signature, you've scrubbed too hard.

Last edited by Ryan_Liam; 01-29-2020 at 05:33 PM.
  #85  
Old 01-29-2020, 05:40 PM
Andy L is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 7,141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam View Post
Lol what? What argument did I have 'demolished' Years ago? I don't have an argument, I'm exploring the concept through discussion, of which you are taking highly personally.
Example of impersonal discussion:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam View Post
You really believe that BS don't you?
  #86  
Old 01-29-2020, 05:56 PM
Ryan_Liam is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 4,291
Quote:
Little Nemo
No, it really is that simple. You just don't like the answer.
I don't like the answer because it's not that simple, and you know it.

Quote:
And, as other people have pointed out, your "depopulation" story isn't what happened.
It happened in Barbados. Nor have I said depopulation did happen in North America, I posed a hypothetical of when it becomes a circumstance, is it still theft?

Quote:
Native populations were reduced by disease but they weren't eliminated.
Native populations may not have been wiped out altogether but they were eliminated from certain areas.

Quote:
There were still natives living in the lands when Europeans showed up.
No one has said that wasn't the case in this thread, implied or otherwise.

Quote:
So the Europeans did not take over unoccupied land; they stole the land from the people who were living there.
Some Europeans stole some land which was unoccupied. This is your problem with nuance. Case in point.

Quote:
For nearly a century before the landing of the Mayflower in 1620, the Ninnimissinuok sporadically experienced direct contact by European explorers[25] and for decades before that the indirect consequences of European cod fishermen off the Newfoundland banks.[e]

The effect of these early encounters was profound. First, and more immediately catastrophic, Europeans brought a variety of diseases[f] for which the aboriginal population had no resistance. When the English settlers arrived, they discovered that vast swaths of Southern New England, previously prepared for cultivation and settlement by extensive deforestation and land preparation was devoid of all inhabitants.[29]

Second, more gradual but equally profound for the economic and social conditions of the Natives, the "Fur Trade" engaged in at first by the Newfoundland fishermen, and later, more systematically by the French and English, destroyed the previously existing continental intertribal pattern of exchange in which the Natives traded local products in a system of extensive and peaceful commerce.

That system was replaced by an economy driven by the demand of the Europeans for one product (animal pelts). The new economy resulted in intense intertribal rivalries and hostilities, which eventually allowed the English to play one off against the other.[30]

In addition to contributing to the first two causes of calamity, the English created immense ill-will and eventually hostilities by their aggressive approach to settlement, the brutality of which was apparent even before the first settlers.[31] This was the result of the system the English employed which depended exclusively on private profiteers.

[g] Richard Hakluyt made plain the goals that the entrepreneurs would pursue in an "inducement" he wrote in 1585: "The ends of this voyage are these: 1, to plant the Christian religion; 2, To trafficke; 3, To conquer; Or, to do all three."[32] The first goal was never seriously pursued.[h]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninnimissinuok
__________________
If you can read this signature, you've scrubbed too hard.
  #87  
Old 01-29-2020, 05:59 PM
Ryan_Liam is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 4,291
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy L View Post
Example of impersonal discussion:
Me considering what he said as BS isn't taking it personally. Him having multiple posts ascribing certain judgements of my moral character because of this topic is.
__________________
If you can read this signature, you've scrubbed too hard.
  #88  
Old 01-29-2020, 07:01 PM
Melbourne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,787
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimfromNapa View Post
Yes, the Aztec Empire was part of the continuum of empires in that region. However, a least they were engaged in conflict in their own neighborhood and on pretty even terms with their adversaries. Oh, and they did not attempt to completely annihilate the cultures of their foes.
cite?

Alternatively, the subjugated peoples co-operated (to their ultimate disadvantage) with the Spanish in the overthrow of the vicious, exploitative, genocidal Aztec empire.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam View Post
This motif crops up from time to time in discussions I read and it got me wondering, whilst there are instances of theft from native populations due to unequal treaties, how is it theft if the empire in question was the government body and was responsible for the area it controlled?
Also, it's not as if the resources of that area would not have been exploited by people in said country for the same purpose, so how is it any worse?
It's worth remembering that the empire of the English included England. Where the ruling class, to use their own language, regarded agricultural labourers as a separate race, and stole their land.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Author Unknown
The law locks up the man or woman
Who steals the goose off the common
But leaves the greater villain loose
Who steals the common from the goose.
The period of 'enclosures' includes the period when the population of Britain doubled, importation of food was not possible due to war and revolution, and there was literally not enough to eat for 50 years. The rich got richer by charging extortion rates for food grown on the land they had annexed.
  #89  
Old 01-29-2020, 07:20 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snarky_Kong View Post
If I break into someone's house, kill them, and then leave with the TV it's not actually theft because dead people can't own things.
If they stole the TV from the previous owners, who they also killed, it's not quite as immoral as your version.
  #90  
Old 01-29-2020, 07:26 PM
Ryan_Liam is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 4,291
Quote:
Melbourne
It's worth remembering that the empire of the English included England. Where the ruling class, to use their own language, regarded agricultural labourers as a separate race, and stole their land.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Quote:
The period of 'enclosures' includes the period when the population of Britain doubled, importation of food was not possible due to war and revolution, and there was literally not enough to eat for 50 years. The rich got richer by charging extortion rates for food grown on the land they had annexed.
The corn laws and navigation acts were all based on the predominant economic theory of Merchantilism of where there is a finite amount of resources in the world. Unless of course you're refering to something else which requires a citation.
__________________
If you can read this signature, you've scrubbed too hard.
  #91  
Old 01-30-2020, 12:11 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 27,423
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam View Post
You really believe that BS don't you?
I'ts not "BS", and yes, I do.
Quote:
Have a read of this, and get back to me, thanks.
I'm sorry, what does some rich man's toy, that failed at any industrially useful work, have to do with this? Oh, right, because it led to Newcomen?

You might have just answered "Yes" when I asked if you subscribed to the March of Progress nonsense, would have saved you a lot of typing.

Steam Engine alone =/= Industrial Revolution.
Quote:
No it's not, I've not blamed the Native Americans for anything
Yes, you have. I get that you don't see that you have, but you very much have.
Quote:
Fair enough, then they were not background actors in their own circumstances.
This is hardly a startling discovery.

If you hold me up at gunpoint and force me to type my own PIN at the ATM, I'm also a "background actor" in my own robbery...
Quote:
So you're asking for a Utopian ideal
No, I'm asking that we have some sort of truth in labeling for history.

I'm not saying history didn't happen. I'm saying we shouldn't paper over what Empire actually is by avoiding calling rapine "rapine".
Quote:
Garbage, Barbados became depopulated
"Became depopulated", gosh, you really love the passive voice.

So you're claiming it was all disease and Spanish slave raids had nothing to do with it?

Or are you really going to make the disingenuous argument that because it wasn't the English that did the raiding, but they did the settling, that somehow absolves Empire of theft?
Quote:
Emphasis on some.
"Some" is enough.
Quote:
How can they "rob" them if nobody is left alive in that particular area?
Make up your mind. "Some" is not "nobody".
Quote:
Lol what? What argument did I have 'demolished' Years ago? I don't have an argument


Please. Everyone can see your posts. And previous threads.
Quote:
I'm exploring the concept through discussion, of which you are taking highly personally.
No need for me to try when it's blatantly obvious you are.
Like I said - obvious bullshit is obvious. When you don't have facts on your side, go for the ad hominem. Never mind that it's a clear sign you don't actually have a leg to stand on. It's all you have now.
  #92  
Old 01-30-2020, 12:17 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 27,423
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam View Post
Me considering what he said as BS isn't taking it personally. Him having multiple posts ascribing certain judgements of my moral character because of this topic is.
I've made exactly zero posts of judgement of your moral character. Unless you care to cite where I have?
  #93  
Old 01-30-2020, 01:27 AM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 84,436
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam View Post
I don't like the answer because it's not that simple, and you know it.
Yes, I do know it. That's why I'm saying you're wrong. There were no areas anywhere in the Americas or in Australia or in New Zealand that were devoid of native populations when the Europeans arrived. So anyone claiming otherwise is wrong.

There were some islands that were uninhabited when Europeans arrived. Places like Bermuda, Cape Verde, and Mauritius. I have no problem with the discoverers claiming ownership of these places. They were uninhabited and therefore not stolen.
  #94  
Old 01-30-2020, 04:29 AM
Melbourne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,787
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam View Post
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by N Kent, Hints to Gentlemen 1793
"thou shall not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn" is divine law, figuratively signifying, that the poorer race of people, who are instruments, by which he earth is cultivated, ought to enjoy a reasonable portion of its produce
I am not a historian: I don't know why you think that posting the observation that the English ruling class used such language is an extraordinary claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruggles, Annuals of Agriculture 1792
A man must always live by his work, and his wages must be at least sufficient to maintain him: they must even upon most occasions, otherwise it would be impossible for him to bring up a family, and the race of such workmen would not be left beyond the first generation
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam View Post
The corn laws and navigation acts were all based on the predominant economic theory of Merchantilism of where there is a finite amount of resources in the world. Unless of course you're refering to something else which requires a citation.
What kind of citation? In the 18th century, the population doubled: the area under cultivation did not. Do all such observations require citations? We aren't in GC: is there a particular reason to require a citation for this point?

(Doesn't matter anyway: I thought it was an interesting observation, but you can take it or leave it.)

Last edited by Melbourne; 01-30-2020 at 04:33 AM.
  #95  
Old 01-30-2020, 04:47 AM
I Love Me, Vol. I's Avatar
I Love Me, Vol. I is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SF
Posts: 4,794
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snarky_Kong View Post
If I break into someone's house, kill them, and then leave with the TV it's not actually theft because dead people can't own things.
IANAL, but it would seem it was the property of someone who isn't you (probably the estate of the decadents?) so it's still stealing.
  #96  
Old 01-30-2020, 04:55 AM
I Love Me, Vol. I's Avatar
I Love Me, Vol. I is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SF
Posts: 4,794
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
No, not at all. The Aztecs had an empire. They stole land from other people. It was no different than when the Spanish stole land from the Aztecs.
Gotta admire the Aztecs. They murdered, raped, and pillaged with the greed and ferocity of white men. That's why we now consider them to have been an 'advanced culture'.
  #97  
Old 01-30-2020, 10:49 AM
fedman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan_Liam View Post
But smallpox wasn't by design, that was merely by contact.
Like Americans did ti Native Americans?
  #98  
Old 01-30-2020, 11:37 AM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 6,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
'It wasn't theft, Officer! Yes, I moved into this house, burned half its contents, and shipped most of the rest off across the ocean; but it's not theft because the guys living there had stolen the house from the previous tenant and killed them all, But they had had stolen the house from someone else, who had also stolen the house.
Even better, I built a brand new house with all the modern conveniences including a swimming pool which I let the surviving previous tenets clean for me. So it worked out well for them too.
  #99  
Old 01-30-2020, 04:05 PM
Ryan_Liam is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 4,291
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
I've made exactly zero posts of judgement of your moral character. Unless you care to cite where I have?
How about we start with the 'Rah rah imperialism'
__________________
If you can read this signature, you've scrubbed too hard.
  #100  
Old 01-30-2020, 04:22 PM
Ryan_Liam is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 4,291
Quote:
MrDibble
I'ts not "BS", and yes, I do.
That's just pathetic then.

Quote:
I'm sorry, what does some rich man's toy, that failed at any industrially useful work, have to do with this? Oh, right, because it led to Newcomen?
Nope, you're saying that people only invented things for financial gain, whereas people invented things because they were interested in those fields. Not everything is driven by a profit motive.

Quote:
You might have just answered "Yes" when I asked if you subscribed to the March of Progress nonsense, would have saved you a lot of typing.
But I don't subscribe to that, stop trying to ascribe my intentions to fit your position.

Quote:
Steam Engine alone =/= Industrial Revolution.
Never said that, but it wasn't all done in the name of a financial motive.

Quote:
Yes, you have. I get that you don't see that you have, but you very much have.
No I haven't, giving them agency and not relegating them to something akin to a background character isn't blaming them.

Quote:
If you hold me up at gunpoint and force me to type my own PIN at the ATM, I'm also a "background actor" in my own robbery...
No, but if I take your gun and then proceed to rob in turn then it's hardly a background character.

Quote:
No, I'm asking that we have some sort of truth in labeling for history.
Truth bordering on a utopian ideal.

Quote:
I'm not saying history didn't happen. I'm saying we shouldn't paper over what Empire actually is by avoiding calling rapine "rapine".
I've not denied that happened.

Quote:
So you're claiming it was all disease and Spanish slave raids had nothing to do with it?
That's what you're insinuating, I took those circumstances as a given and focused on the subsequent colonisation.

Quote:
Or are you really going to make the disingenuous argument that because it wasn't the English that did the raiding, but they did the settling, that somehow absolves Empire of theft?
Nope, it's an example of how an empire didn't do theft, and the crux of my discussion was 'is all empire based on theft'

Quote:
"Some" is enough.
We're discussing all

Quote:
Please. Everyone can see your posts. And previous threads.
Well, enlighten me. Which 'Argument' Was demolished?

Quote:
Like I said - obvious bullshit is obvious. When you don't have facts on your side, go for the ad hominem. Never mind that it's a clear sign you don't actually have a leg to stand on. It's all you have now.
I do have facts on my side. You're getting all upset obviously because you're from South Africa and have experienced the taking away of land from Black South Africans and its manifesting itself in this thread. I can appreciate that. I don't need to ad hominem anything but I'll always respond to someone personally attacking me.
__________________
If you can read this signature, you've scrubbed too hard.
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:50 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017