You know terms like “Genocide” are very loaded. Sure, by accidentally bringing over germs and such, Europeans did wipe out maybe 90% of the Native Population.
But other than isolated incidents, the idea wasnt to wipe out the natives, i.e. commit “genocide”.
African slavery started in Africa.
As a defined group, I would say men did the most damage. Adult men. Actually adult men who are now dead.
While I’m not sure that comparing the wrongs of huge groups of dead people (especially when the vast majority of wrongness can be put at the feet of a relatively small number of any of those groups) is productive, I don’t like this argument – it would seem to imply (which I imagine you didn’t intend) that the Nazis escape some culpability for anti-semitism because they didn’t “invent” it. Who “invented” slavery (and I would expect it was so long ago that it was part of a group for which we’d have no modern name) seems irrelevant when looking at the immorality of various forms of slavery in recorded history. And that the Nazis didn’t invent anti-semitism amounts to nothing as far as absolving them of any responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust.
Europeans invented capitalism, which ended slavery. Any credit for that?
I’m highly skeptical of both claims. A few Europeans may have been the first to write about capitalism (though I’m not even certain that’s the case), but capitalism in some form or another has probably been in existence as long as people were living in groups and interacting with each other. And at least some forms and elements of capitalism coexisted with slavery (and at least in some ways benefited from it) for a long, long time.
But more discussion of this would probably be a hijack, so if you want to discuss it further, I’d recommend starting a new thread.
Forgive me for my lack of knowledge but what are examples of atrocities in history done in other continents?
The Mongols alone depopulated whole cities. Mao alone caused the deaths of 10’s of millions, and Chinese emperors before him weren’t exactly known for restraint (stuff like the Qing dynasty conquest of the Ming dynasty or Lushan Rebellion). In the Americas, you had the Aztecs and Inca with their ritual sacrifices and conquests. North Africa and ME you had the various Moorish and Muslim conquests. India there was the Mughal–Maratha Wars. And these are just off the top of my head…there are a lot of examples of really horrific things outside of Europe or unrelated to Europe (I concede that the Mao example and probably stuff like the Khmer Rouge and such were related to Europe). Basically, every place there were or are humans you are going to get atrocities…the more humans, the more atrocities. Europeans aren’t unique in this…the real difference is they had a global reach and due to their history and technology were able to push the limits wrt exploitation.
I think history plainly shows that European colonial expansion did more cultural damage worldwide than anything else known to us in history. Numerous groups of people were ravaged by disease and military subjugation because of it. In fact, entire groups such as the Mayans disappeared altogether. Since Italy is part of Europe, the Roman Empire and all of their military conquests count in this, too.
Communism wasn’t imposed by Euros; Mao shaped it to his own beliefs and imposed it all by himself. His communists engaged Soviet communists in pitched battles.
Europeans have certainly done the most damage to each other.
The ideas and philosophies came from Europe, and Russia (a European power) was directly responsible for Mao in myriad ways, including where his philosophy came from and direct military and monetary support before, during and after WWII. I suppose it depends on how you view the overall impact of Europe and European philosophy as well as European ideas, technology and the rest, but I bundle them all together, especially for this discussion. The good with the bad.
Show of hands - who here has ever heard of the Taiping Rebellion?
Quick summary - it overlaps the American civil war and killed at least ten times as many people.
The only difference between European bad guys and earlier bad guys around the globe is that Europeans hit upon a few important technological breakthroughs first. MANY peoples had invaded, conquered and slaughtered other nations before the Spaniards. The only difference is that, say, the Mongols didn’t have the ability to travel to the Americas. If they COULD have reached the Americas and conquered the Inca and Aztecs, rest assured they WOULD have.
If the Chinese had figured out earlier how to turn gunpowder into a serious weapon rather than a toy, they might have conquered countless neighboring lands. They didn’t, which allowed Europe to get the military edge.
The Nazis had technology (trains, gas) that allowed them to round up and kill massive numbers of people. Lots of civilizations WOULD have done the same if they had the ability.
Communism in the Euro tradition was completely irrelavent to China because the baseline conditions (urban proletariat) were basically nonexistent. Mao created a shadow Communism based around an agricultural peasantry. He did try to force industrialization during The Great Leap Forward with horrible effects. His crimes were mostly centered around his own cult of personality and trying to hold onto power. He was more Emporer than Chairman.
Unless you are asserting that Mao developed his brand of Communism in a vacuum and without any European influences (like, say, from Peter Kropotkin, let alone Marx himself) I honestly don’t know where you are coming from…and if you are saying that then you are simply wrong. Hell, unless you think that he reinvented industrialism, right there it’s got a distinctive European influence.
On this basis, communism in the European tradition was completely irrelevant to the Soviet Union because the baseline conditions (urban proletariat) were basically nonexistent in Russia; Lenin created communism based around an agrarian peasantry. Stalin forced industrialization in the late 1920s and 1930s at a horrific human cost. He had a huge cult of personality and had people executed in their tens and hundreds of thousands simply out of paranoia (see The Great Purge), and was by far more a dictator than a chairman.
This all might be true – and if I was born into a family of monsters (morally speaking), I might have become a monster myself.
But what might be ain’t what is, and what might have been ain’t what was.
Even leaving aside that “Europeans” aren’t a meaningful ethnic, linguistic or cultural group, no. I’m pretty sure that would be the Chinese.
Really? How about - relatively speaking - the ancient Egyptians with their spread south and north? How about the Vikings, conquering Russia, France, Britain, etc? How about the Mongols, who spread from the utter east to Europe?
Just like the Mongols obliterated entire cultures. And how about the Middle Eastern farming cultures which spread in all directions, destroying all the hunter-gatherer cultures before them?
Neither were any kind of communism Marx would have recognized. Leninism? Maybe. Mao was also very nationalistic which is in direct contradiction to Marxist thought. Mao might have been influenced by Marxism but he wasn’t driven by it.