Cleanup in Aisle Lunatic (h/t romad1)

[1984Echoes]

1 hour ago, chasfh said:

... since 90% of the indigenous people were wiped out within the first century of European domination of the Americas.

As an aside: it was the Pope who authorized genocide.

But your 90% was mostly due to disease. Not genocide.

[Motown Bombers]

7 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said:

As an aside: it was the Pope who authorized genocide.

But your 90% was mostly due to disease. Not genocide.

Guess the Native Americans did their own research and took horse dewormer. 

[Tigeraholic1]

44 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said:

You're talking about kids who created the KKK, Jim Crow, and lynchings... right?

Thats right, the whole Union Army were terrible white people who bred whole generations more of the same. As long as the textbook teaches white shame everyone wins.

Edited November 9, 2021 by Tigeraholic1

[buddha]

2 hours ago, chasfh said:

Columbus definitely was not a genocidal maniac bent on the immoral destruction of the indigenous people of the Western Hemisphere. He was actually a stateless mercenary freebooter committed to the complete conquest, economic exploitation, and enslavement of the indigenous people of the Western Hemisphere. The genocide was merely a disciplinary strategy to keep the locals in line. It was so effective a strategy that subsequent conquerors of the Hemisphere had to import enslaved people from halfway around the world to do all the work, since 90% of the indigenous people were wiped out within the first century of European domination of the Americas.

none of which was exclusive to columbus or europeans.

[gehringer_2]

5 hours ago, buddha said:

but that's always been the case (more or less, i would quibble that technology is brought into it and maybe too much.  disease is just as important and not discussed as much.  luck too).

in fact, i would argue that the native people in many respects adapted to european technology fairly quickly and in some cases, brilliantly.  what the problem was was disease and internal squabbling/fighting that prevented them from defeating their enemies.  and not necessarily knowing they were enemies.

my comment is that the tone has shifted from one of celebration of the "wests" victories to making them out to be genocidal maniacs bent only on destruction.  and IMMORAL destruction.  that the people they conquered were somehow passive victims with no agency who were put to the sword by bloodthirsty european monsters.

 that is a sea change in how the history of the world is seen.  that europe and america no longer see their greatest accomplishments as accomplishments.

But the "accomplishments" of Western culture should be separated from things like the conquest of indigenous peoples - they are different things. In the US we had papered over what was done in the name of the progress of Western Civilization, but what was done in the new World was no different that anything Genghis Khan did. The "Progress of Western Civilization" was never actually served by "Manifest Destiny" et al - that was always just old fashioned greed and tribal imperative -- unchanged as it has been from the beginning of history. But the truth is that the "West" has always talked a better game than it has played - going right back to Greece, which was chock full of internecine warfare one a scale that would boggle anyone's mind. 

Now that's not to say that the political and philosophical constructs the West has generated haven't proven their value in the rise in the quality of life they have produced, only that they have been and continue to be falsely invoked too often   in the service of less noble atavism.

Edited November 9, 2021 by gehringer_2

[buddha]

2 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

But the "accomplishments" of Western culture should be separated from things like the conquest of indigenous peoples - they are different things. In the US we had papered over what was done in the name of the progress of Western Civilization, but what was done in the new World was no different that anything Genghis Khan did. The "Progress of Western Civilization" was never actually served by "Manifest Destiny" et al - that was always just old fashioned greed and tribal imperative -- unchanged as it has been from the beginning of history. But the truth is that the "West" has always talked a better game than it has played - going right back to Greece, which was chock full of internecine warfare one a scale that would boggle anyone's mind. 

Now that's not to say that the political and philosophical constructs the West has generated haven't proven their value in the rise in the quality of life they have produced, only that they have been and continue to be falsely invoked too often   in the service of less noble atavism.

the conquest of the americas (and really, the world) is an accomplishment of the west.

painting it as a MORAL conquest is as flase as painting it as a moral failure.  the conquest of the americas by europeans is a series of events that happened that should be viewed as such, not as a moral failure or a triumph or moral or righteous superiority based on ethnic makeup.

nuance.

[oblong]

God wanted us to take it and we were superior to all of them.  That’s what I was taught in my fundamentalist school.  

[gehringer_2]

10 minutes ago, buddha said:

the conquest of the americas (and really, the world) is an accomplishment of the west.

painting it as a MORAL conquest is as flase as painting it as a moral failure.  the conquest of the americas by europeans is a series of events that happened that should be viewed as such, not as a moral failure or a triumph or moral or righteous superiority based on ethnic makeup.

nuance.

well if you want to call the defeat of a fundamentally neolithic culture by one with chemistry, metallurgy and steam engines an 'accomplishment.'  It strikes me more along the lines of a participation trophy for having shown up.  

But it was war - and war and moral failure are pretty synonymous. And tend to be  on all sides.

 

Edited November 9, 2021 by gehringer_2

[pfife]

I've got friend who thinks diversity training videos at work are crt.   He's asked me if we have to watch videos about white people being evil oppressors... like his company does. I said no we just have videos about not being fucking assholes

Edited November 9, 2021 by pfife

[buddha]

15 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

well if you want to call the defeat of a fundamentally neolithic culture by one with chemistry, metallurgy and steam engines an 'accomplishment.'  It strikes me more along the lines of a participation trophy for having shown up.  

But it was war - and war and moral failure are pretty synonymous. And tend to be  on all sides.

 

youre placing way too much emphasis on technology as to what actually happened.  disease and luck and internal political disputes mattered more, especially in the beginning.  by the end, demography had taken over.

[Jim Cowan]

It seems to be in our nature, going back 50,000 years, to see something that we want and take it by force. 

[buddha]

8 minutes ago, Jim Cowan said:

It seems to be in our nature, going back 50,000 years, to see something that we want and take it by force. 

if by "our" nature, you mean "human" nature, then i agree.

to say this impulse implicates one particular "race" or culture over others is a problem, imo.  it was a problem when it was suggested that native cultures lost to superior moral europeans and it is a problem to say europeans were less moral because of the results of their conquests.

[Jim Cowan]

Just now, buddha said:

if by "our" nature, you mean "human" nature, then i agree.

to say this impulse implicates one particular "race" or culture over others is a problem, imo.  it was a problem when it was suggested that native cultures lost to superior moral europeans and it is a problem to say europeans were less moral because of the results of their conquests.

I said 50,000 years for a reason, I don't know how much racial diversity existed then but there sure as heck weren't any "white men".  We have been attacking and enslaving each other since long before any history was being recorded.

[buddha]

1 minute ago, Jim Cowan said:

I said 50,000 years for a reason, I don't know how much racial diversity existed then but there sure as heck weren't any "white men".  We have been attacking and enslaving each other since long before any history was being recorded.

agreed.

one could argue that it was only after the european led "enlightenment" and emphasis on human rights - however imperfect - that the movement away from slavery and conquest because of moral reasons truly began in earnest.

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, buddha said:

youre placing way too much emphasis on technology as to what actually happened.  disease and luck and internal political disputes mattered more, especially in the beginning.  by the end, demography had taken over.

it depends on what part you are talking about. When Cortez arrived in Mexico disease had yet to take any toll but the Aztecs had no answer to Spanish steel. In the interegnum smallpox, TB etc took their toll which made the early English settlements sustainable, but long after disease had run its course the US indian wars were matters of trains to move troops, better weaponry, and far superior economic power allowing greater resource commitment. That's in part demography but a demography only made possible by the technology that demographic possessed. If Euro settlers had only indigenous technology they could not have out populated the indigenous inhabitants and certainly couldn't have gotten here from Europe in numbers either.

Edited November 9, 2021 by gehringer_2

[buddha]

8 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

it depends on what part you are talking about. When Cortez arrived in Mexico disease had yet to take any toll but the Aztecs had no answer to Spanish steel. In the interegnum smallpox, TB etc took their toll which made the early English settlements sustainable, but long after disease had run its course the US indian wars were matters of trains to move troops, better weaponry, and far superior economic power allowing greater resource commitment. That's in part demography but a demography only made possible by the technology that demographic possessed. If Euro settlers had only indigenous technology they could not have out populated the indigenous inhabitants.

when cortez arrived in mexico disease had yet to inflict its toll.  but even after smallpox began to do so, cortex was outnumbered by thousands.  how could he still win?  they had a marginal tech advantage, but they were still outnunbered by thousands to one.

so what happened?

luck, hutzpah, and luck.

not tech.  not superior morals (or inferior morals), but luck and cortez having the balls the size or sevilla.

that should be noted and appreciated, not listed down to "you had guns and they didnt."  that explanation reduces the achievements of cortez and the other conquistadores to an inevitability seen from 21st century eyes rather than seeing their achievements through a more proper 15th-16th century one (not to mention the monumental effects it had on world history).

[gehringer_2]

23 minutes ago, buddha said:

when cortez arrived in mexico disease had yet to inflict its toll.  but even after smallpox began to do so, cortex was outnumbered by thousands.  how could he still win?  they had a marginal tech advantage, but they were still outnunbered by thousands to one.

so what happened?

luck, hutzpah, and luck.

not tech.  not superior morals (or inferior morals), but luck and cortez having the balls the size or sevilla.

that should be noted and appreciated, not listed down to "you had guns and they didnt."  that explanation reduces the achievements of cortez and the other conquistadores to an inevitability seen from 21st century eyes rather than seeing their achievements through a more proper 15th-16th century one (not to mention the monumental effects it had on world history).

I think you overestimate Cortez. His luck was that his tech looked like magic. 🪄

Actually he did have the luck of arriving in the midst of a climate change catastrophe as well which left the Aztecs more than a little pissed off at their current gods. Mexico city was a lake when Cortez got there but it wouldn't be for much longer.

Edited November 9, 2021 by gehringer_2

[ewsieg]

All I know about pre-Columbus is that all Indian tribes respected and honored each other.  They would regularly meet up and sing Kumbaya. 

[buddha]

7 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

I think you overestimate Cortez. His luck was that his tech looked like magic. 🪄

Actually he did have the luck of arriving in the midst of a climate change catastrophe as well which left the Aztecs more than a little pissed off at their current gods. Mexico city was a lake when Cortez got there but it wouldn't be for much longer.

i'm not sure youre completely versed in the facts.  "climate change" is the cause celebre at the moment, but even if the aztecs wete feeling more challenged because of population decrease, they still outnumbered cortez by thousands.

more important to cortez were the tribes who were NOT aztecs, who allied with cortex because they all hated the aztecs because the (peaceful, brown) aztecs spent their time brutally killing and massacering their fellow local americans.  

by aligning with them  cortez was able to use them to help him defeat a divided aztec empire.  the incas were another example of this.  so were the english colonists in america.

again, tech plays a role, but the more important role was disease and luck.  the aztecs, incas, american indians took our tech amd mastered it quickly.  what they couldnt overcome was their own internal politics which splintered their ability to combat the new threat, and their inability to fight off smallpox.

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, buddha said:

the aztecs, incas, american indians took our tech amd mastered it quickly. 

this is a simplistic view of technology. Learning to use a rifle is not mastering the technology of arms production. What indigenous population ran their own smelters, manufactured their own tooling, controlled their own production resources or even manufactured their own steel plows? Borrowing tools is not controlling or possessing technology at a societal level.

The Spanish could and did eventually resupply men and weaponry (manufacture and logistics!) to Cortez in a way the Aztec couldn't match. Regardless of Corez's short term luck, gall, barbarity or stupidity, the Aztecs were going to lose any battle with Spain once Spain committed to it.

Edited November 9, 2021 by gehringer_2

[Mr.TaterSalad]

12 hours ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

What about the kids of racist who fought in the Civil War? I think their parents felt Blacks were the same value as cattle. They understood their parents way of thinking was wrong and tried to make things better. I think there was alot of death to prove it.

I don't think they did. Those kids went on to join the klan and enforce Jim Crow and separate but equal segregation. So instead of slavery that just chased people down, lynched them when they tired to vote, and brutally beat them when the whistled at white girls, see Emmitt Till.

The modern day Republican Party still has all the same frame work that would accept separate but equal segregation, Jim Crow laws, lynching, and the klan. It's just that they can't get away with it any longer because that is just enough of America that wouldn't accept it.

But believe me, spend a day with my dad, his buddies, and millions of Republicans like him, especially when he/they have had a few beers and you'll come to understand what the average Republican thinks about black people. And by black people, I mean another, more abhorrent word I'm not going to say here. Also Hispanics, Mexican-Americans, immigrants, Jewish people, Asian-Americans, Vietnamese-Americans especially, South Asians, people with accents, people whose primary language isn't English, gay/bi people, lesbians, transgender people, queer people, woman, especially working woman, etc.

If it wasn't for the influence of my mom I'd be just as racist, xenophobic, anti Semitic, homophobic, misogynist, and overall intolerant as my dad is. No matter how many black, brown, Jewish, gay, immigrant, or woman I went to school with or how many good teachers I had. My dad didn't vote for Trump for his economic policy, let's just say that. Neither did people like Stan and millions of other Americans. My dad, technically smart as he is on a host of issues, still believes Barack Obama is a Kenyan, Muslim. So do tens of millions of other Republicans.

I love my dad because he's my dad and he loves me. I enjoy some of what we have in common. I feel for the brutal life he had growing up as a kid and everything he went through. I feel for the fact that corporate greed took away his financial security in retirement and foreclosed on his house in what should have been his golden years. But make no mistake, there is one overarching reason my votes Republican, and it's their acceptance towards intolerance that drives him to the polls. I don't want to be an intolerant bigot like him and that part of my life, his intolerance towards others, I don't like.

If George Wallace were alive today and ran in the 2024 Republican Primary he'd beat any candidate besides Trump and he may even beat Trump. The good Republicans like the George Will's of the world, they got the hell out of there because they know what their party is now and know what I said above is true.

Edited November 9, 2021 by Mr.TaterSalad

[buddha]

4 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

this is a simplistic view of technology. Learning to use a rifle is not mastering the technology of arms production. What indigenous population ran their own smelters, manufactured their own tooling, controlled their own production resources or even manufactured their own steel plows? Borrowing tools is not controlling or possessing technology at a societal level.

The Spanish could and did eventually resupply men and weaponry (manufacture and logistics!) to Cortez in a way the Aztec couldn't match. Regardless of Corez's short term luck, gall, barbarity or stupidity, the Aztecs were going to lose any battle with Spain once Spain committed to it.

when disease wipes out 90% of your enemy, its much easier to win.  especially when the enemy is surrounded by enemies internally and externally who want to help you win.

the fact that the spanish had guns and horses provided them with military advantage, but still didnt prevent them from almost being wiped out on multiple occasions.  pure luck (and chutzpah) did that.

if 100 spaniards had guns against 10 million aztecs, the spanish lose.  100 spainards against 1 million divided aztecs gives the spaniards a shot.  they took it and won.

youre looking at history backwards because you know what ultimately happens.  if you look at it in the moment, and not as an inevitability, you'll see that other factors were more important than the spanish having a bunch of bad rifles.  its entirely possible that if smallpox doesnt wipe out 90% of them that the spanish simply become trading partners with the aztecs.  or that if the surrounding tribes realize that the spanish are their enemy and not themselves, the unite against them.  

nothing in history was inevitable.

 

[romad1]

Yikes this thread over the past two pages.

[romad1]

1. who cares what she thinks?

Except...she's got her finger to the wind and saw how Youngkin won.

Edited November 9, 2021 by romad1

[pfife]

Imagine not seeing at all how abjectly stupid trump is.