Imperialism and Colonialism -

[Joan Nyan]

Until quite recently in history, the prevailing opinion has been that "Might Makes Right", that it's acceptable and desirable for a country with a stronger military to invade another country with a weaker military or no military and take control. Often this involves wiping out the native culture under the belief that they are savages who need to be civilized. Only rather recently has the prevailing opinion become that imperialism is bad and that native cultures that once would have been called "savage" should be protected and respected.

So, is imperialism wrong because it's often bloody and destroys cultures? Or does it benefit the world as a whole by civilizing inferior cultures and (after a few generations) offering the colonized people better technology and a greater standard of living?

@autisticdragonkin @Hat

 

[autisticdragonkin]

I think that imperialism is totally acceptable but doing it and claiming that you are civilizing the culture and thus being altruistic is either a lie or it is infringing upon their autonomy by trying to make a value judgement for them instead of letting them choose themselves.

I support a Hobbesian social contract in which persons agree to create a state that they are citizens of that will mutually restrict them from infringing upon rights specified in the laws of the state. People are not just able to randomly decide to claim citizenship because that would be the equivalent of someone randomly going up to you and giving you something in exchange for everything you own and then taking all your possessions from you, contracts need to have mutual consent to be legitimate and until the social contract exists nobody has any protections.

So as a result I say that it is totally acceptable for a state to conquer lands owned by other states or occupied by stateless persons and there is nothing wrong with it because the victims are not citizens so they have no rights. I think that you can do whatever be it civilize, enslave, rape, or exterminate the occupants of the land because there are no ethical obligations towards them (but of course they also have every right to fight back so choose your targets wisely)

 

[millais]

Colonialism, settler and non-settler varieties, brings good and bad. The good part is that the colonized people get integrated into the modern globalized economy, and in many cases, they can benefit from establishment of the physical and organizational infrastructure that is constructed by the colonizer, namely in terms of health care, transportation, and education.

The bad part is that SJWs will bitch about it 300 years later.

 

[Asuka]

Before the Europeans came over, Native tribes were doing just fine. The city of Tenochtitlan, now modern day Mexico City, was built by the Aztecs in what would become the biggest city in the world for centuries, beating the likes of Rome or Constantinople. The Haundenosaunee (Iroquois Confederacy) was one of the first bloodless unified democratic states in the world and the Declaration of Independence was based off of the Great Council Fire of Onondaga. The Cherokee Nation was a large confederacy ruled by women warriors who embraced life not by material possessions or through power struggles in politics, but of family. In fact, after the colonists settled themselves in modern day South Carolina and Georgia they were so jealous of the fact that they were living in poverty and that the Cherokee had established a system of wealth and good fortune that they intentionally tried poisoning the people from the inside: bringing in alcohol, telling the men to raise up against their women leaders and into submission, etc. The ideal of "finders keepers losers weepers" is clearly something from the European mindset; your worth in life is determined by how much land and money you have. Native communities all over felt that this was ridiculous, and as such denounced imperialism/colonialism as evil. And they are right! Just because we are the United States and are "free" people with a "democratic" system doesn't make our outcome a proud example of what "good" colonization can do for a region. Colonization has almost wiped out every existence of Native people and culture. Colonization made the Natives drunkards and the #1 minority in drug abuse. Colonization made The Trail of Tears. Colonization made the "termination policy", trying to force Natives out of their reservations and into the ghettos of major cities.

It's perfectly fine for you to say that colonization and imperialism can bring positive and rich things to a region, because it can. I'm not saying foreign exchange of ideas is a bad thing, but at the cost of genocide and the loss of another proud culture? No, it's an evil practice. I'm not saying this because of my race, I'm saying it because for other places like Australia and Ireland shit like this also went down. "Christianize the savages, seal the land for our gain!"

 

[Hat]

I have great respect for those men who, in olden times, managed to conquer or influnce foreign lands in such ways as to, for example, make the people stop setting their widows aflame. That said, our age is not suited for the imperialism of the 17th or 19th centuries, and the priorities of major powers such as the United States of America should be in improving themselves rather than expanding their borders or civilizing other peoples.

Before the Europeans came over, Native tribes were doing just fine. The city of Tenochtitlan, now modern day Mexico City, was built by the Aztecs in what would become the biggest city in the world for centuries, beating the likes of Rome or Constantinople.

The Aztecs were a warrior people who rose to power through jingoistic expansion and the waging of war against other native groups. The fact that they had a large city with streets kept generally cleaner than those found in most European cities does not obliterate this fact. The same can be said of the other major civilizations of Central and South America, namely the Maya and the Inca. To include the Aztec Empire in a list amongst some of the more civilized Indian societies is not helpful to the image of a peaceful, democratic Indian society that stands against the evils of Anglo-Saxon civilization that you try to portray.

 

[Asuka]

The Aztecs were a warrior people who rose to power through jingoistic expansion and the waging of war against other native groups. The fact that they had a large city with streets kept generally cleaner than those found in most European cities does not obliterate this fact. The same can be said of the other major civilizations of Central and South America, namely the Maya and the Inca. To include the Aztec Empire in a list amongst some of the more civilized Indian societies is not helpful to the image of a peaceful, democratic Indian society that stands against the evils of Anglo-Saxon civilization that you try to portray.

Where did I say anywhere "peaceful"? I was merely making the argument that Native tribes were just as capable of doing societal and economical marvels as their European counterparts, albeit at a slower pace. They did not need European influence. They weren't "savages" that needed Christianity and they were fine with the way things were. Most tribes, even the Aztecs, took to family and heritage as the means to live. The Aztecs also wanted the establishment of a unified landmass that would honor tribes by placing one advisor to a certain region that would act as an ambassador to the Emperor. Usually, the accounts you here are from Spanish records who because of their colonization ways misconstrued this as being "savagery". There were brutal deaths from Aztec conquests, but that does not give people the right to say "well, they took over land so the Spanish have the right to do the same thing." It's very different when you make all the tribes try to convert to a completely foreign lifestyle or die. At least the Aztecs gave people many chances to do so. It's also very different when these people come from a different landmass and from the very beginning don't use peaceful measures to interact with their newfound "brethren". The Cherokee were a very strict warrior society at one point. The famous female chief Wilma Mankiller has her last name taken from the term "Asgaya-dahi", a title bestowed amongst an individual who would lead raiders into war usually against the Ohio Valley tribes. Every Native tribe has done raiding against each other. The Pueblo Natives for example had an intense rivalry with the Laguna and Navajo when droughts occurred and the fighting for food sources increased. I'm not saying the Americas before European interference was a utopia, but it was certainly a hell of a lot better when you take into account the amount of death the Spanish placed upon the southwestern tribes in the early 1600s. I'm not sure where you're getting the whole "Anglo-Saxon" thing from either, the Spanish and most of the French are not considered that. Did you think I was just targeting Britain?

I also don't think criticizing this practice makes people whiners or SJWs. This has many impacts even 300 years later. Native college students have some of the worst graduation rates due to rampant racism and stereotyping on campuses, Natives are the #1 minority in terms of alcohol and drug use, and most of them return home to their reservations away from the Western world because they never seem to fit in. They are indeed the "lost minority". The US government were even telling non-Native students in the 1970s that the Natives were an extinct race. This shit was just over 40 years ago. I think we have a right to complain about it when the effects are still being felt.

 

[AnOminous]

To include the Aztec Empire in a list amongst some of the more civilized Indian societies is not helpful to the image of a peaceful, democratic Indian society that stands against the evils of Anglo-Saxon civilization that you try to portray.

I suppose it depends on what you consider civilized. Civilization is not necessarily less cruel than savagery and may in fact be more cruel to those outside the society in question. The Aztecs were certainly highly technologically advanced for the time and region, and the physical infrastructure they built is amazing considering its context.

However, there was certainly a reason they were detested by their neighbors, who were only too happy to assist the Spanish in wiping them out.

It's a simple fact that history has been more influenced by those societies that imposed their will on others, often by force, than by those that have been passive. It doesn't mean they're better or worse, simply that they won, often against cultures just as savagely cruel as the worst conquistadors.

I also don't think criticizing this practice makes people whiners or SJWs. This has many impacts even 300 years later. Native college students have some of the worst graduation rates due to rampant racism and stereotyping on campuses, Natives are the #1 minority in terms of alcohol and drug use, and most of them return home to their reservations away from the Western world because they never seem to fit in. They are indeed the "lost minority". The US government were even telling non-Native students in the 1970s that the Natives were an instinct race. This shit was just over 40 years ago. I think we have a right to complain about it when the effects are still being felt.

People currently alive should be treated well because there is a human duty to do so, not out of some idea of retribution or revenge. The moment any program is presented to the public as "this has to be done because you owe me for this past thing someone else did," the public generally rejects it. It just isn't a useful way to get programs enacted.

 

[Asuka]

People currently alive should be treated well because there is a human duty to do so, not out of some idea of retribution or revenge. The moment any program is presented to the public as "this has to be done because you owe me for this past thing someone else did," the public generally rejects it. It just isn't a useful way to get programs enacted.

I agree with you, and I wasn't trying to point that out at all. When some idiotic "higher education" textbook says though that "these certain Native tribes are now gone" when there's considerable amount of evidence they are still active, you can bet that someone will be fired up and said "BUT I'M RIGHT HERE! REPRESENT ME!" I remember when in Native Club there was a Wampanoag member who came in to talk to us and normally when he goes to do leadership lectures, nobody knows the tribe he is from when he says it. One of his students told him that her high school taught them that the Wampanoag were a dead tribe who died during King Phillip's War.

EDIT: To add on, I don't blame white people for everything. I mean, I'm half White. It would be dissing a part of me. But I am blaming certain European powers for at this period promoting this sick ideal of genocide all for the glorification of a "greater New World". And the fact that the US glosses over these tribes constantly and violate land rights treaties just makes it even more frustrating.

 

[Vitriol]

I think it is a tremndously complex issue, not at all helped by the romantism of the 'noble savage' that has come back into vogue in the past decade.

In some places like parts africa and india colonial empires were clearly of considerable benefit- ending slavery and barbaric practices such as footbinding and human sacrifice. Colonial administrators also building modern infrastructure to an extent that much of it is still in use today and providing regiemes which were far less corrupt than many of their successors- adjusted for inflation nigeria had a gdp percapita almost double its 2015 amount in 1950. In others the impact was extremely harmful to native culture and populations as happened in north america and australia.

There were brutal deaths from Aztec conquests, but that does not give people the right to say "well, they took over land so the Spanish have the right to do the same thing." It's very different when you make all the tribes try to convert to a completely foreign lifestyle or die. At least the Aztecs gave people many chances to do so. It's also very different when these people come from a different landmass and from the very beginning don't use peaceful measures to interact with their newfound "brethren"

I disagree with this completely, native societies fought, enslaved and competed with each other and there is no reason in my mind why europeans should have been restricted in joining in. We look back on it now and look down on it because of the tremendously unequal strengths involved but the europeans were not doing anything the locals weren't already doing to each other and it is a weird form of selective racism to suggest that because they were from europe they didnt have as much right as anyone else to compete for resources. Its a bit like afronationalists who claim the british had no right to be in south africa while lauding shaka's conquests or indians doing the same holding maharaja warlords as legitamate in their conquests while blasting white people as imperialists.

The aztecs, incas etc could be just as brutal to conquered tribes- they might not have insisted on mass conversion but enslavement and mass sacrifice were both common which is just as bad if we are going to retroactively apply modern standards. Which is why it is pointless to do so- better for people to focus on moving forward and bettering their current condition.

 

[AnOminous]

And the fact that the US glosses over these tribes constantly and violate land rights treaties just makes it even more frustrating.

I think treaties should generally be abided by where possible, because not doing so impacts the credibility of even having treaties as a practice, but at least where a treaty exists, even one in a state of breach, the actual duties and obligations are on paper somewhere and, in theory, can be litigated, sometimes successfully.

Not that the state of enforcement isn't absolutely dismal in many cases.

 

[Hat]

Where did I say anywhere "peaceful"? I was merely making the argument that Native tribes were just as capable of doing societal and economical marvels as their European counterparts, albeit at a slower pace.

You did not explicitly state that the Aztecs were peaceful, but you did condemn the land-grabbing "finders keepers" attitude of the European settlers, despite that being an attitude similar to that which the Aztecs adopted. Despite this, you seem rather willing to excuse or at least temper this on the grounds that they were trying to unite the land, but I doubt you would engage in such apologia on the topic of Manifest Destiny.

They did not need European influence. They weren't "savages" that needed Christianity and they were fine with the way things were.

I see no great issue in the attempts to convert a people that felt they had to perform human sacrifice to hold off the end of the world every 52 years to Christianity.

I'm not sure where you're getting the whole "Anglo-Saxon" thing from either, the Spanish and most of the French are not considered that. Did you think I was just targeting Britain?

The United States of America, which seems to be a primary target at which you cast aspersions, was born out of thirteen colonies previously under control by the British. Territories that the nation absorbed were sometimes of Spanish, French, or even Russian control, but it is still inherently an institution of Anglo-Saxon origin.

The US government were even telling non-Native students in the 1970s that the Natives were an instinct race. This shit was just over 40 years ago. I think we have a right to complain about it when the effects are still being felt.

Presuming that you mean "extinct" instead of "instinct," I suppose that it's accurate to say that they are, as a society, mostly gone. Even if the Indians are living on their reservations under the names of the old tribes and keeping alive what practices and traditions they can, the days of the Indians living of the lands in their Eastern tribes or hunting the buffalo in the Great Plains are long gone and will never come back. It would probably be best if the United States were to revert its policy on the Indians to a reformed version of its policies under the Dawes Severalty Act, but that does not seem to be a popular position amongst either the White or Indian populations.

 

[Asuka]

You did not explicitly state that the Aztecs were peaceful, but you did condemn the land-grabbing "finders keepers" attitude of the European settlers, despite that being an attitude similar to that which the Aztecs adopted. Despite this, you seem rather willing to excuse or at least temper this on the grounds that they were trying to unite the land, but I doubt you would engage in such apologia on the topic of Manifest Destiny.

You're right, I don't. Because Manifest Destiny was an operation by the United States where people believed they had the god-given right to kill Natives westwards to complete their expansion. These people have been here before the Roman Empire, before the Greek Empire, before Ur. Their culture and traditions extending almost 10,000+ years vanquished within 100 years. Bear in mind, you don't have the whole "Aztecs were violent" argument to back you up here because none of the westward tribes even came close to an Empire of warrior-class strength, and most of them were isolated. Some tribes were eliminated in seconds without warning, especially ones in California.

I see no great issue in the attempts to convert a people that felt they had to perform human sacrifice to hold off the end of the world every 52 years to Christianity.

Of course you wouldn't, because you're looking at it from a Western perspective. People in those days had some pretty fucked up beliefs. Montezuma II killed more of his people than any other Emperor, but how can you use this argument when "in the name of Christianity" the settlers raped, killed, and tortured the Natives if they didn't turn to God and go to church every Sunday? Are you really justifying that Christianity was the better option for these people to convert to, because it almost wiped out the Pueblo before they rightfully revolted against the Spanish.

The United States of America, which seems to be a primary target at which you cast aspersions, was born out of thirteen colonies previously under control by the British. Territories that the nation absorbed were sometimes of Spanish, French, or even Russian control, but it is still inherently an institution of Anglo-Saxon origin.

I'm talking about every indigenous American Native. I have relatives that stretch as far as Laguna. To me, everybody across the continent that is indigenous is my brethren.

Presuming that you mean "extinct" instead of "instinct," I suppose that it's accurate to say that they are, as a society, mostly gone. Even if the Indians are living on their reservations under the names of the old tribes and keeping alive what practices and traditions they can, the days of the Indians living of the lands in their Eastern tribes or hunting the buffalo in the Great Plains are long gone and will never come back. It would probably be best if the United States were to revert its policy on the Indians to a reformed version of its policies under the Dawes Severalty Act, but that does not seem to be a popular position amongst either the White or Indian populations.

I did mean extinct, I apologize for the error. As to your quote, the reason why we are so few in numbers right now is because of colonialism trying to kill off our culture and society. The United States shouldn't do anything on "Indian policy", we are a sovereign people and we will gladly uphold our traditions. I may not be able to use the Onondagan language anywhere in the world, but the point is that I know where my heritage belongs and I try everyday to remind myself and to others that no matter what colonial policy in the past tried to keep us down we always have a sliver of hope in the eyes of our elders and minds of our youth.

 

[Lugal]

If we're even going to have this discussion, we should first dispense with all the Victorian drivel about 'bringing civilization'. That was nothing self-serving lie, and if you don't realize this, you're an idiot. Imperialism is about rape and plunder, always has been, always will be. Any positive side-effects were merely an unintended consequence of killing people and taking their shit. Any technological advancements that imperialists brought with them were brought with specific purpose of extracting as much wealth as possible from conquered territory.

 

[Vitriol]

If we're even going to have this discussion, we should first dispense with all the Victorian drivel about 'bringing civilization'. That was nothing self-serving lie, and if you don't realize this, you're an idiot. Imperialism is about rape and plunder, always has been, always will be. Any positive side-effects were merely an unintended consequence of killing people and taking their shit. Any technological advancements that imperialists brought with them were brought with specific purpose of extracting as much wealth as possible from conquered territory.

That is as much an oversimplification as the claim that empires were purely good- Hansard is full of debates about exactly how to best develop the colonies for the benefit of the natives and 'the white mans burden' was certainly a real concept. The Victorians put considerable resources into what they thought would benefit their subjects- we might disagree with their decisions now but they certainly were not motivated purely by profit.

hansard is also full of debates highlighting that africa especially was costing as much to run as it was making and toward the end of the 18th century/ early 19th century was making a loss.

It is fashionable now to blast the colonial empires as being profit driven machines but they were at least as much motivated by a belief in the superiority of western ideals/culture and a desire to share them with the rest of the world even if the rest of the world didn't yet want them and despite the considerable expense- the west africa squadron and the invasions of nigeria to quash the slave trade is a typical example of this.

Many of the pre colonial tribes were encountered without writing, roads, railways, telecoms, advanced systems of law and administration, professional armies, complex metals, machinery, school systems, modern medicine etc etc. We can refer to that as developing rather than civilising if you like but its the same process. These people were living in brutal primitivism and the colonies did provide a chance to catch up with the rest of the world.

 

[Ponderous Pillock]

While on the topic of Native Americans and how hey were dealt with by the United States, an awful lot of issues rose up during the war of independence where the British argued (quite correctly) that should Britain lose control of the colonies, then Westward expansion was inevitable.

While westward expansion may have been inevitable anyway (French Northern America was just "over there" and typically poorly defended) British policy towards the natives was relatively benign and largely rested on a basis of hiring local scouts and trade. It wasn't particularly within British interest to expand massively across the North American continent in the interim.

Numerous tribes and scouts were hired and used by the British in the War of Independance and largely abandoned by the British come war's end. This resentment carried over into the later Westward expansions where the Natives were seen as a potential enemy within.

That being said, while I acknowledge that massacres took place and were horrific, I am not so entirely sure Genocide can apply quite so easily. It has been noted that up to 90% of the native population was wiped out a good century before permanent European settlement in Northern America, skewing the figures as to how many natives were alive at one point.

On top of that an awful lot of Americans have some level of Indian Blood in them from various tribes, "dead" or not. This to me, suggests that intermingling and interbreeding of Natives and Settlers occurred on a much larger scale than either side seems willing to acknowledge.

Unlike the similar programs enacted in Australia and to a lesser degree against the Inuit peoples of Canada, this situation seems to have been largely successful, with many "native" characteristics suppressed or diluted.

As for Imperialism and Colonialism itself? I'll come up with some thoughts later.

 

[AnOminous]

That being said, while I acknowledge that massacres took place and were horrific, I am not so entirely sure Genocide can apply quite so easily. It has been noted that up to 90% of the native population was wiped out a good century before permanent European settlement in Northern America, skewing the figures as to how many natives were alive at one point.

It was definitely genocide by any modern definition of the term.

However, the very word "genocide" itself is a Twentieth Century invention and did not come into general commerce until after World War II.

That it was wrong to slaughter various native people sadistically and senselessly, as Columbus did to the Taino, was certainly not a novel idea, as the horrified contemporary account of Bartolome de Las Casas shows. However, in general, the idea of intentionally and specifically eliminating an entire culture for the specific sake of doing it is a uniquely modern sin.

 

[Ariel]

One of the major players European colonialism was not actually a nation, it was the British East India Company. It had an army and administration. It's essentially what started the British Empire.

During its heyday, the East India Company not only established trade through Asia and the Middle East but also effectively became of the ruler of territories vastly larger than the United Kingdom itself. In addition, it also created, rather than conquered, colonies. Singapore, for example, was an island with very few Malay inhabitants in 1819 when Sir Stamford Raffles purchased it for the Company from their ruler, the Sultan of Johor, and created what eventually became one of the world's greatest trans-shipment ports.

Source (it's supposed to say trans-shipment ports but i'm not changing that because TRANNIES!)

There is an interesting documentary but I can only find part 2 online as it's from a few years ago

 

[Asuka]

It is fashionable now to blast the colonial empires as being profit driven machines but they were at least as much motivated by a belief in the superiority of western ideals/culture and a desire to share them with the rest of the world even if the rest of the world didn't yet want them and despite the considerable expense- the west africa squadron and the invasions of nigeria to quash the slave trade is a typical example of this.

Many of the pre colonial tribes were encountered without writing, roads, railways, telecoms, advanced systems of law and administration, professional armies, complex metals, machinery, school systems, modern medicine etc etc. We can refer to that as developing rather than civilising if you like but its the same process. These people were living in brutal primitivism and the colonies did provide a chance to catch up with the rest of the world.

What you forget is that Hansard is not an indigenous publication, it is a British entity who I bet has way more white historians than, if any, indigenous scholars. It's so easy to say that such and such philosopher argues that the intentions weren't as bad as people make it out to be, but let's be honest here: who writes the history in an imperialized colony? Who develops the norms that say it's okay for a country like this to be founded upon the blood of millions of inhabitants who only wanted peace with the newcomers? They weren't all in it for profit, they say? Why then were the 13 colonies "established" under entities such as "The Massachusetts Bay Company"? The colonists didn't come over to spread their ideas: they thought that this "New World" was deserted and once they discovered Native people it became a problem to establish their new Protestant utopia. The only way was 3 options: 1) Make alliances with them with treaties that can be easily broken when convenient; 2) Try to assimilate them into thinking Western culture is so great; or 3) outright kill them. The colonists did not want to bring Western ideas to Natives as a benefit, they used it to brainwash the Natives into doing things that contradicted to their way of life so that it would be easier for the colonists to establish control of the land. Colonists realized that alcohol really fucked up Native psyche, so now you introduce health hazards into the mix as well as plagues to further make a point of submission.

Primitivism does not give the right for other colonies to come over and claim that Christianity is the road to salvation or that the Natives needed to squash their cultures and ideas because "muh beliefs are better than your beliefs". Remember how we tried and tried again to "democratize" and "Westernize" the Middle East with our technology and business ventures because they are third world countries? Now Muslims everywhere are pissed off at us and that's what got terrorist groups like ISIS in control. Sorry to say, but once you try to push forth ideas of a very backwords world onto a culture that were fine with hunting and gathering it's wrong. Living on the land, spending your life with family, occasional raiding, buffalo hunting, ceremonial dances, sweat lodges, traditional dresses...what makes this "uncivilized"? Because we don't have flashy technology and a proper irrigation system? Sorry but that's an idea brought up by Western society; it's completely foreign to Native tribes and like I said, many Native tribes like the Haudenosaunee and Cherokee Nation established organized governments long before the settlers ever came over.

That being said, while I acknowledge that massacres took place and were horrific, I am not so entirely sure Genocide can apply quite so easily. It has been noted that up to 90% of the native population was wiped out a good century before permanent European settlement in Northern America, skewing the figures as to how many natives were alive at one point.

Where did you get this information? In the East Coast alone before colonization (using the Wiemann estimate), over 100 million Natives lived in various tribes. By the time the Revolutionary War happened, that number dropped down to just above 12 million. Now obviously census didn't exist yet so these stats could be wrong, but a lot of Native peoples were killed by disease and gunfights, things that they've never encountered before and therefore had no experience in dealing with.

 

[Vitriol]

What you forget is that Hansard is not an indigenous publication, it is a British entity who I bet has way more white historians than, if any, indigenous scholars. It's so easy to say that such and such philosopher argues that the intentions weren't as bad as people make it out to be, but let's be honest here: who writes the history in an imperialized colony? Who develops the norms that say it's okay for a country like this to be founded upon the blood of millions of inhabitants who only wanted peace with the newcomers? They weren't all in it for profit, they say? Why then were the 13 colonies "established" under entities such as "The Massachusetts Bay Company"? The colonists didn't come over to spread their ideas: they thought that this "New World" was deserted and once they discovered Native people it became a problem to establish their new Protestant utopia. The only way was 3 options: 1) Make alliances with them with treaties that can be easily broken when convenient; 2) Try to assimilate them into thinking Western culture is so great; or 3) outright kill them. The colonists did not want to bring Western ideas to Natives as a benefit, they used it to brainwash the Natives into doing things that contradicted to their way of life so that it would be easier for the colonists to establish control of the land. Colonists realized that alcohol really fucked up Native psyche, so now you introduce health hazards into the mix as well as plagues to further make a point of submission.

Hansard is the record of debate in the british parliament and the most accurate record by far of what those who built and ran the empire were thinking. It doesnt have any historians it is just a transcript of what was said in the house.

They were not all in it for profit- this is a historical fact. The colonies were established by companies because that was the term for a joint enterprise at the time. It did not carry the same exclusively commercial meaning it does today.

They didnt have any particuliar right to the land they took- but nor did the natives. Native tribes frequently competed for resources and the europeans did the same- they were just far better at it. The notion of self determism and of the people living in an area choosing its rulers war far less developed and didnt exist in the modern sense untill after the second world war.

The treatment of some natives by some colonists was atrocious, but that does not mean all colonisation was evil nor that it never brought advantages. The united states is a particuliar example of colonisation done in its most brutal form the same is not true of the later african and asian colonies.

Some colonists did wish to bring weatern ideas to the natives for the benefit of the natives, many of these people considered christianity a fundamental part of what made western culture superior. I think there are far more examples of genuinely earnest misssionaries leaving the relative safety and comfort of europe to proslytise throughout the empires than cynical use of religion as a tool to control the natives. Later colonial administrations actively discouraged missionary activity as it led to religious tension.

Your description of the options availiable to colonial admins is hysterical and americentric. The preferred method (and the method in europe re wales and ireland aswell) was to conquer the natives, grant them the rights of non voting citizens, and allow them to maintain such elements of their culture that were compatable with the english legal system and to integrate over time.

A consquence of primitism is the lack of the advantageous developments like the ones i listed before. I did not mention the barbaric practices that were stamped out- cannabilism, human sacrifice, footbinding and slavery are rare today because the european empires came to oppose these practices and actively moved to stamp them out.

A primitive culture is unable to defend its people or resources and the rights of said people. This is why they can be described as primitive. It is not something to be celebrated and is nothing to do with what europeans thought of as civilised- indian raja or chinese mandarins were awknowledged as being civilised even if they were disliked for their strange religion. While in the modern world where competition for resources is dealt with via negotiation at the wtc and placed secound to national independence before the second world war the norm was for resources to belong to whoever could take and hold them. This was true universally and in that context there is no particuliar moral objection to the conquest of natives by europeans.

You say its wrong to push a culture on hunter gatherers but you dont say why- there is no difference between you arbitarily declaring forcing change on them is wrong and declaring that it is right- both are based on a purely subjective moral decision as to which culture is superior. The only objective measure is which society can better provide for the safety and comfort of its people and better improve the lot of mankind as a whole. Primitive native cultures failed this test when confronted with european settlers just as celtic tribes failed when they met rome.

There is of course an objection to the deliberate genocide or enslavement of peoples but slavery is again a global norm that has only passed into taboo because of the moral decisions of empires to outlaw it and massacres and atrocities were reported with horror when they occured. Claiming that because some empires commited atrocities at certain times, there was no benefit to the entity as a whole, is no different to claiming that because of cia torture at guatamino bay there is no merit to the concept of a modern democracy.


Whether or not ones belief in the superiority of ones own values is a valid excuse for the imposition of said belief is a large and separate question- it is enough to awknowledge that for many of the empires there was a belief in a duty to share their culture and what they saw as the best way to live independant of the financial or commercial benefits and that this kept the colonial projects alive in some parts of the world even when they were not generating money.

I would argue it is precisely because we did not take the same brutal methodology of the victorians in the middle east that we have failed so spectaculiarly to impose western values in recent years. India in the late 1700s was just as much of a patchwork of warring ethno-religious groups. 150 years of colonial rule and it was a unified and functioning democracy- not perfect by any means but the difference is considerable. Had colonial rule continued modern india probably would not have its caste system. The pax brittania was a real thing and it is a failure to act as vigourously that has caused the rise of isis. The british and french plunged huge sums of money into maintaining their peace. If iraq had a large us garrison or syria had been invaded when civil war broke out (which was the imperial method for dealing with unstable regions) isis would absolutely have been stamped out and the people running the middle east would certainly hold liberal western values because they would be westerners.

One of the major players European colonialism was not actually a nation, it was the British East India Company. It had an army and administration. It's essentially what started the British Empire.

Source (it's supposed to say tranny-shipment ports but i'm not changing that because TRANNIES!)

There is an interesting documentary but I can only find part 2 online as it's from a few years ago

The company in practice was run by a board of control, the president of which was a cabinet position in the uk government. In modern terms it was a state organ that had to fund itself. It frequently ran into financial difficulties after it took on admin functions.

 

[Asuka]

Hansard is the record of debate in the british parliament and the most accurate record by far of what those who built and ran the empire were thinking. It doesnt have any historians it is just a transcript of what was said in the house.

And like I said, no indigenous representation. I'm not going to trust white debaters who have no idea what it's like being on the other side of the sword. Imperialists make the history.

They didnt have any particuliar right to the land they took- but nor did the natives. Native tribes frequently competed for resources and the europeans did the same- they were just far better at it. The notion of self determism and of the people living in an area choosing its rulers war far less developed and didnt exist in the modern sense untill after the second world war.

All of human civilization have fought against each other, it's part of who we are and I'm not denying it. But you're not seeing the big picture: from my history, Woodland Natives raided each other but would never kill just to kill. They did not believe the land was strictly for use to one person or one tribe. It was all to enjoy. Allow me to explain a typical Woodlands setup:

A plot of land is a territorial claim. About 1/4 of the land would be designated as "hunting grounds", a section where no settlements would be built and neighboring tribes could go and do hunting with ease. Another part would be the trading area, where business would take place with other tribes and the exchanging of new ideas. Finally, the rest of the land would be the longhouses where people lived. Nations like the Haudenosaunee opened doors for neighboring tribes and only used territorial causes of war in times of raiding (where the competition of food sources in a drought or cold winter) were necessary or if one douchebag decided to kidnap someone for a ritual. I get that places like the southwestern tribes were different, but for Woodlands Natives this was the norm and when the English came with their views of "finders keepers" this 10,000+ old tradition was completely squashed in decades. We called the settlers our "brethren". We wanted to make peace with them and co-exist with them. They repay us with death, disease, rape, and reservations. Oh, but at least we now know how to tend fields and wear Western clothing.

The treatment of some natives by some colonists was atrocious, but that does not mean all colonisation was evil nor that it never brought advantages. The united states is a particuliar example of colonisation done in its most brutal form the same is not true of the later african and asian colonies.

Advantages for the conquerors, disadvantages for the conquered. Do I need to bring this up again? Native people were gathered up like cattle and put on reservations where they had no jurisdiction and severe poverty level. Native students constantly flunk out of college and go back to their reservations because of the Western world's skewed perspective of Native culture. Thousands upon thousands of languages and culture were destroyed. Alcoholism and drug abuse in record high numbers of all Native populace. The Natives are thankful that the West brought over new agricultural techniques, but at what cost? The deaths of millions? One or two positives does not outweigh a thousand negatives. You cannot convince me of this argument.

Some colonists did wish to bring weatern ideas to the natives for the benefit of the natives, many of these people considered christianity a fundamental part of what made western culture superior. I think there are far more examples of genuinely earnest misssionaries leaving the relative safety and comfort of europe to proslytise throughout the empires than cynical use of religion as a tool to control the natives. Later colonial administrations actively discouraged missionary activity as it led to religious tension.

Pueblos clearly have something to say about that. The Spanish conquistadors were there to conquer land in the name of God. Anybody who didn't like it had their limbs chopped off, their women raped, and their religious shrines severely secreted. Their religious leader Po'Pay had his ears burned off by some asshole guard who got mad that Po'Pay held a ceremonial dance. This lead to the Pueblo War of Independence where the Pueblos knocked away the Spanish force. So, doesn't that kind of contradict your later statements of Native tribes not being able to defend themselves?

Your description of the options availiable to colonial admins is hysterical and americentric. The preferred method (and the method in europe re wales and ireland aswell) was to conquer the natives, grant them the rights of non voting citizens, and allow them to maintain such elements of their culture that were compatable with the english legal system and to integrate over time.

Why use the term "americentric"? This occurred on the land which became the United States, I'm pretty sure indigenous scholars and historians know what they are talking about. British and European scholars, especially during the times of the colonies, have completely bullshit bias working in their minds. Natives did not want to integrate. That's the problem. They did not like the English forces coming in and telling them how to live their life. That's why you have great spiritual and social leaders like Little Turtle, Chief Joseph, Red Soldier, and Geronimo lead Pan-Indian movements throughout the centuries.

A consquence of primitism is the lack of the advantageous developments like the ones i listed before. I did not mention the barbaric practices that were stamped out- cannabilism, human sacrifice, footbinding and slavery are rare today because the european empires came to oppose these practices and actively moved to stamp them out.

At least for Woodland Natives, none of those ever occurred on Haudenosaunee lands except for slavery, which we only got into at the hype of the Revolutionary War when we were in dire need of help maintaining our lands where the warriors went off to fight. And you're saying that European empires are what caused these things to be stamped out? The slave trade was EMBRACED by Europeans until the minority groups starting raising up and not wanting to take that shit anymore. Using your philosophy, I'd say Europe was none too advanced either if they let a Black Plague ravage them in medieval times all due to the fact that people never showered. lol

You say its wrong to push a culture on hunter gatherers but you dont say why

Because Native peoples were fine with the way things were. Why else do you think we have tons of Native organizations like the Indian Youth Council or Congress of American Indians? When someone points a gun to your forehead when you don't conform to lord Jesus Christ, then yeah chances are I'm going to say that's just a tad wrong.

There is of course an objection to the deliberate genocide or enslavement of peoples but slavery is again a global norm that has only passed into taboo because of the moral decisions of empires to outlaw it and massacres and atrocities were reported with horror when they occured. Claiming that because some empires commited atrocities at certain times, there was no benefit to the entity as a whole, is no different to claiming that because of cia torture at guatamino bay there is no merit to the concept of a modern democracy.

"Slavery is again a global norm that has only passed into taboo because of the moral decisions of empires to outlaw it" No, it was taboo for us. You're not even attempting to look at the perspective from the Natives. You're only looking at the European side, where you justify that it was normal for things to occur back then because "that's how it was". It hasn't just "only passed into taboo", it always was and quite frankly it's horrible to see this kind of mindset in this day and age.

Whether or not ones belief in the superiority of ones own values is a valid excuse for the imposition of said belief is a large and separate question- it is enough to awknowledge that for many of the empires there was a belief in a duty to share their culture and what they saw as the best way to live independant of the financial or commercial benefits and that this kept the colonial projects alive in some parts of the world even when they were not generating money.

Again, I am not saying that it's wrong to spread culture and ideas around to other parts of the world. But doing it with genocide and rape is not the answer, and then polluting and using up our resources only adds insult to injury. The environment is very close to our beliefs, we're not "hippies". To see all the corruption and pollution to our lands is very sad.

isis would absolutely have been stamped out and the people running the middle east would certainly hold liberal western values because they would be westerners.

The United States can't play God. Let regions do whatever the fuck they want with their culture and traditions as long as it doesn't affect the integrity and stability of other neighboring countries. The reason why ISIS exists right now is because of their frustration with democracy and Western ideals, along with inner Muslim politics.