Progress. You agree with Little Nemo that Native Americans opposed (some) imperialism.
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?
‘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.
You don’t think it’s the reason British engineering won out over, say, French or German?
No.
…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.
The decimation from disease doesn’t erase the murder and enslavement. Murders that continued well into the 19th and even 20th centuries.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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 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.
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.
All groups have done this.
Take the Crow Creek Massacrewhere one tribe of Native Americans massacred the members of another tribe. this occurred in the 1300’s well before
Columbus.
Naah. No financial impetus, no revolution.
Yes, it is.
No, I’m not. And “passive actors” is an oxymoron, really.
So what?
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”.
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.
Do you know the meaning of the word *internecine *? This has got precisely bugger all to do with empires.
Ryan Liam,
What do you mean by empire?
Are native territorial disputes imperial?
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!
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.
Nothing there, at first glance.
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"?:dubious:
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.