Genocide of Indians in America

[Damian]

Anyone today would prefer European-style atrocious "medieval feudalism" above such an abhorrent practice.

Actually prymitivism of medieval Europe seems to be a myth. I listen some medievalists and from their words, that age was very interesting and rather progressive, despite a wide spread popular picture of primitive medieval times. Of course life conditions was not the best ones, but well such were these times.

For example, it is interesting a relations between people and animals back then. I heard from one medievalist, that back then, even animals could get a relatively fair court trail (for example pig that attacked and eated small child, not very uncommon thing back then), can you imagine such humanism towards animals today? Of course for us it might be ridiculous or funny.

From cultural point of view, there were also other interesting behaviors, that seems disapearing these times unfortunetely, like understanding of honor, how to treat women properly and many other things.

So medieval was primitive at all, and was somewhat progressive.



As for human sacrifices, this is something definetely disgusting, primitive, well it can be called that way, I would rather say, it is religious primitivism, a religion without any deeper toughts, basic principle was if god demands it, you give it.

 

[civfanatic]

At this time yes, it was meaningless, due to countless wars and corruption of most of the most rich and powerfull nobility, we lost independence, even despite the best efforts of patriots and armed forces.

Besides this, it is hard to fight on a 3 fronts with 3 superpowers.

So you agree that Poland's contribution to science was meaningless? Good, we are reaching an agreement.

And there was no such thing as a "superpower" in medieval or early modern times.

Look at map again, both Denmark and Sweden had and still have access to the north sea and thus easy route to atlantic.

It seems you are determined to come up with any bullshit excuse. Explain then how even Brandenburg-Prussia had colonies in Africa and North America, but not Poland. Last time I checked, Brandenburg has access only to the Baltic Sea, like Poland.

You see, this is typical for Indians, you hate Europeans and you do everything, including manipulation, to shows as primitives or barbarians.

It was you who called a group of people as primitive and barbarians, not me. In fact I have great respect for Western Europeans (note I said Western, not Eastern) who have contributed greatly to political theory, philosophy, and science, even though they committed many genocides and massacres throughout the world. I am simply saying it is wrong for a Pole like you to call an entire race of people as inferior, especially when your own people achieved very little and ultimately were wiped off the world map.

Only because some cities were damaged or even destroyed it didn't change much, and reason was simple, the nobility was mostly residing in countryside, and the countryside was a basic of economy at that time, cities were gaining importance, but it was not a process in a "blink of an eye".

Poland was very underdeveloped at the time. Even the largest "cities" were no more than small towns. So naturally, the Mongol invasions did not have such a devastating impact, since there was not much to destroy in the first place. A rich man who gets robbed will lose much more than a poor homeless man who gets robbed. But this does not change the fact that Poland was still overrun by the Mongols multiple times.

 

[civfanatic]

@civfanatic What do you think of the human sacrifices widespread among the Aztec & Mayan (maybe Inca, as well) nobility ?

Anyone today would prefer European-style atrocious "medieval feudalism" above such an abhorrent practice.

For all their accomplishments, do you still consider those Native American civilizations civilized in the real sense ?

I am using the word "civilized" in its real, material sense, which refers to a high level of economic development, especially in terms of having large cities supported by systems of agriculture and trade. In fact, the word "civilized" itself comes from the Latin word civitas which means "city".

If you want to define "civilization" in abstract (and anachronistic) ethical/moral terms, then the Europeans would actually come out on the very bottom. The skeletons from European colonialism make Aztec ritual sacrifice seem like child's play.

 

[Damian]

So you agree that Poland's contribution to science was meaningless? Good, we are reaching an agreement.

No, it was meaningfull. If you have problems with understanding what your adversary says, then I don't see a point to discuss with ignorant and manipulator.

And there was no such thing as a "superpower" in medieval times.

By who's standards? Ours in XXI century? Or people living back then?

It seems you are determined to come up with any bullshit excuse. Explain then how even Brandenburg-Prussia had colonies in Africa and North America, but not Poland. Last time I checked, Brandenburg has access only to the Baltic Sea, like Poland.

It seems that you start to use any BS to only discredit other nations and states, especially European ones.

What's more, you start to attack my nation and my country. Maybe attack me if you don't like my opinion?

It was you who called a group of people as primitive and barbarians, not me.

No, read again, oh wait, you are incapable to read with understaing.

So again, trying to explain a child like you. I said that from civilization progress point of view they were primitive, not from intelectual.

In fact I have great respect for Western Europeans (note I said Western, not Eastern) who have contributed greatly to political theory, philosophy, and science, even though they committed many genocides and massacres throughout the world. I am simply saying it is wrong for a Pole like you to call an entire race of people as inferior, especially when your own people achieved very little and ultimately were wiped off the world map.

No, it is not wrong for me, neither my people achieved very little, and neither we were wiped off the world map. It might be shock of you, but my country exists and have relatively good situation, people here have a relatively high standard of life compared to many other nations, and I can talk about this for days or longer.

I am just unwiling to give up to a lier like you.

Poland was very underdeveloped at the time. Even the largest "cities" were no more than small towns. So naturally, the Mongol invasions did not have such a devastating impact, since there was not much to destroy in the first place. A rich man who gets robbed will lose much more than a poor homeless man who gets robbed. But this does not change the fact that Poland was still overrun by the Mongols multiple times.

Again, Mongols did not achieved a wide success, they robbed some cities and that's all. In fact mongols payed a rather high casualties rate during their attack on Poland (and not only Poland) and their success was limited.

Obviously to know more, you would need to know some slavic languages.

And no, Poland was not underdeveloped, although I completely understand that for you, who seems to hate/dislike especially nations of central and eastern Europe, such lies are completely convienent tool to discredit your adversary.

 

[ice berg]

Apparently you are too poorly educated to even understand that Wikipedia is not allways a good source.

Says the kid who didnt know that Wikipedia has links to references.

Mongols did little damage to us really, and they were incapable to force us to any form of compliance.

Only because some cities were damaged or even destroyed it didn't change much, and reason was simple, the nobility was mostly residing in countryside, and the countryside was a basic of economy at that time, cities were gaining importance, but it was not a process in a "blink of an eye".

What is more important, Mongols attacked during "fragmentation of Poland", where different provincess were governed by dukes, and there was no king at the moment. It was difficult time for kingdom, and it even further shows the strenght of it, that despite of internal problems (very serious ones), mongols were incapable to conquer us.

So it seems that historical ignorant here is you, not me.

If you were able to read the references or the articles, it was clealy not their goal to conquer Poland. But to pillaging.

 

[Damian]

If you were able to read the references or even able to read the articles, it was clealy not their goal to conquer Poland. But to pillaging.

If you would be capable to think, you would know that we do not know all their goals and motives. I am certain that if Mongols would have such possibility, they would conquer.

As I said, you do not know history of Europe, neither you are willing to understand it, then stop commenting it.

I do not comment ancient history of China, simply because I do not live there, neither there is any significant point of interest for me to learn about it.

Other thing is history of Europe (which was not as primitive as movies or you would like to show it) or North America which was not also about genociding native americans by colonists, which is tried to be forced on people from Europe or having european heritage. Simple as that.

And I or many other people, will actively oppose such unfair accusations, only because some butthurted people need to find a scapegoat for their frustrations.

 

[Energon]

Excellent find @The Messiah.

However, some on DFI would find this too uncomfortable for their taste
@Energon @W.G.Ewald @lookieloo @average american @trackwhack @pmaitra

I can't speak for anyone else, but this does not make me uncomfortable in any way because it's true. This is not a new revelation, the alternate viewpoint of history has also been published by stalwarts like Howard Zinn in "A People's history of the United States." Indigenous tribes were unable to withstand the onslaught of the European invaders. The Spaniards were by far the worst and Argentina is probably the greatest example of near complete genocide/ethnic cleansing in the Americas if not the world.

In terms of advanced/ inferior societies here are my views: What exactly constitutes "superiority or inferiority" has always been a point of contention. I've always thought a comparison between the type and scope of institutions a society builds and supports (not merely possession but rather the continual expansion of institutions) to be a relatively better indicator. And yes, in this case I think there's merit to the conclusion that the Europeans were more "advanced" than the indigenous tribes in the Americas or Africa. Now mind you just because one party overruns the other doesn't mean they're more advanced as a society. There have been many instances where marauders have sacked societies that were far superior to them.

Some of the nomadic tribes in the Americas may have had comparatively more egalitarian social structures. However by the time Europeans began expansion they had already built a wide array of significantly more advanced, educational, military, social, political and economic institutions. This is precisely why they possessed superior technology that not only gave them an edge in conducting warfare on land and sea but also the ability to foster a frontier culture. However the reason Europeans had better institutions was entirely due to circumstance and not because of some inherent quality of superiority. Prior to expansion Europeans had already spent copious time slaughtering each other, trading, looting and surviving plagues. It was on account of these challenges that they had to build institutions in order to survive (a factor often overlooked by self righteous pricks like Niall Ferguson). The indigenous Americans had no such history and subsequently no impetus to develop sophisticated institutions. This is why the more "advanced" Europeans were able to annihilate the "backward" indigenous tribes.

However at the end of the day the "strong" eliminating the "weak" has always been a continual feature in life as we know it right from unicellular microorganisms to present day nation states.

 

[ice berg]

If you would be capable to think, you would know that we do not know all their goals and motives. I am certain that if Mongols would have such possibility, they would conquer.

Complete nonsens again. If you have basic map reading skills you would know their goal was not Poland. Their goal were Hungary. You were just in the way.

As I said, you do not know history of Europe, neither you are willing to understand it, then stop commenting it.

Son, you didnt even know your own history, lol. That is why everyone is entertained by your "knowledges" of Native Americans.

I do not comment ancient history of China, simply because I do not live there, neither there is any significant point of interest for me to learn about it.

No doubt since you are so busy learning about your own history. And it seems you have a long way to go.

Other thing is history of Europe (which was not as primitive as movies or you would like to show it)

Never claimed that, but then again, your reading skills isnt exactly great. or else care to quote me?

or North America which was not also about genociding native americans by colonists, which is tried to be forced on people from Europe or having european heritage. Simple as that.

Your grammar is so poor that I have no idea what you trying to say.

And I or many other people, will actively oppose such unfair accusations, only because some butthurted people need to find a scapegoat for their frustrations.

Wow, you can be self critical after all!

 

[Damian]

However the reason Europeans had better institutions was entirely due to circumstance and not because of some inherent quality of superiority. Prior to expansion Europeans had already spent copious time slaughtering each other, trading, looting and surviving plagues. It was on account of these challenges that they had to build institutions in order to survive (a factor often overlooked by self righteous pricks like Niall Ferguson). The indigenous Americans had no such history and subsequently no impetus to develop sophisticated institutions. This is why the more "advanced" Europeans were able to annihilate the "backward" indigenous tribes.

This is good point. Pradoxaly, a very brutal and filled with warfare history of Europe, give people there advantage in a form of nececity to continously advance their societies.

There was just nececity for rapid advance, while other civilization just lacked this nececity, and they did loose, somewhat pity as it would be interesting to see mixing their cultures with ours at some point, and it is even more pity that at least in case of USA's history, natives did not seen opportunity to mix with colonists (issue with schools that was discussed earlier), many wasted opporutinties.

Wow, you can be self critical after all!

I do not see anything self critical there.

And neither you know me, or know what men I am. The fact is however, that I am against political correctness and neverending apologizing for past or even things that are nothing more than anti-european propaganda.

 

[civfanatic]

No, it was meaningfull. If you have problems with understanding what your adversary says, then I don't see a point to discuss with ignorant and manipulator.

For God's sake, you yourself said it was meaningless:

At this time yes, it was meaningless, due to countless wars and corruption of most of the most rich and powerfull nobility, we lost independence, even despite the best efforts of patriots and armed forces.

Keep in mind the context in which we are talking. First, you claimed (wrongly) that Native Americans "had no science". After I proved you wrong, you claimed (again wrongly) that "it didn't help them". Then you claimed that Native American science was useless because it didn't prevent them from being conquered (which is a ridiculous argument, since it means all science that is not related to military development is "useless"). But by the same token, the contribution of Copernicus was also useless (as you apparently agreed), because it did not prevent Poland from being partitioned and wiped off the world map. Thus, as per your own argument, if the Native Americans "had no science" because it didn't save them, then neither did the Poles, since it didn't save them either. So your argument that Native Americans are "primitive" for being conquered by Europeans is flawed, since the same arguments can also be applied to Poland. But once someone uses your same arguments against you, you throw a tantrum and accuse them of being "white-hating racists".

By who's standards? Ours in XXI century? Or people living back then?

A superpower is a state which possesses sufficient hard and soft power to influence political events on a global scale. This means that the state possesses a powerful military capable of projecting power over large distances, as well as a culture/ideology which is influential throughout the world. There were only three states in human history that can be called "superpowers": the British Empire in the 19th and early 20th century, the Soviet Union in the 20th century, and the United States.

Poland was not fighting against any "superpowers" in the 17th or 18th century, because none existed.

It seems that you start to use any BS to only discredit other nations and states, especially European ones.

What's more, you start to attack my nation and my country. Maybe attack me if you don't like my opinion?

Translation: I have been proven wrong, and I no longer have an argument.

So again, trying to explain a child like you. I said that from civilization progress point of view they were primitive, not from intelectual.

And I proved you wrong, by showing that they were NOT primitive from a "civilization progress" [sic] point of view. Read my previous posts again, especially when I compared the Aztec Empire to the Kingdom of Poland.

No, it is not wrong for me, neither my people achieved very little, and neither we were wiped off the world map. It might be shock of you, but my country exists and have relatively good situation, people here have a relatively high standard of life compared to many other nations, and I can talk about this for days or longer.

I am just unwiling to give up to a lier like you.

Your country WAS wiped off the world map, in the late 18th century, by Russia, Prussia, and Austria, and it was again wiped off the map in 1939. The modern Polish nation-state is the result of the Soviet victory in WWII.

 

[civfanatic]

Some of the nomadic tribes in the Americas may have had comparatively more egalitarian social structures. However by the time Europeans began expansion they had already built a wide array of significantly more advanced, educational, military, social, political and economic institutions. This is precisely why they possessed superior technology that not only gave them an edge in conducting warfare on land and sea but also the ability to foster a frontier culture. However the reason Europeans had better institutions was entirely due to circumstance and not because of some inherent quality of superiority. Prior to expansion Europeans had already spent copious time slaughtering each other, trading, looting and surviving plagues. It was on account of these challenges that they had to build institutions in order to survive (a factor often overlooked by self righteous pricks like Niall Ferguson). The indigenous Americans had no such history and subsequently no impetus to develop sophisticated institutions. This is why the more "advanced" Europeans were able to annihilate the "backward" indigenous tribes.

Not all Native Americans were nomadic tribesmen. In Mexico and Peru, the reasons for the European (Spaniard) conquest of the indigenous states (note I said states, because that's what they were, not "tribes") had very little, if anything, to do with "superior institutions". In fact, the Spaniards adopted and modified pre-Columbian Native American state institutions. One of the best examples would be with the encomienda and repartimiento systems of forced labor used by the Spaniards in the Americas, which were derived from the labor tax (mita) levied by the Inca state. In fact, it was precisely by adopting and modifying/expanding these Native American state institutions, that the Spanish could quickly and effectively establish centralized control over such a large territory and population.

The actual reasons for the successful Spanish conquest, included disease (by far the single most decisive factor), superior transportation (horses and ships), superior weaponry, and quite a bit of dumb luck.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

When I was younger I went to school with a few kids who were descendants of the
Five nations(Iroquois nation) and a good friend of mine was a Mohawk Indian. But
It has been years since I have met any native. I have never met a native who
Was 100 percent pure blooded.

 

[Tolaha]

@TrueSpirit: Regarding your post on human sacrifices by the native Americans.....

Slaughtering humans for religious reasons has been practised by people in most parts of the world. They are however referred to in terms such as witch-hunt (Witch-hunt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), Inquisition etc. So its not an exclusively a Native American phenomenon. Humans being burnt on the pyre for the good of the society (with the backing of religion) is an unfortunately widespread tradition.


P.S: Mods, having some issue in quoting posts and the site is slow in general. Not sure if its just me!

 

[Dovah]

@TrueSpirit: Regarding your post on human sacrifices by the native Americans.....

Slaughtering humans for religious reasons has been practised by people in most parts of the world. They are however referred to in terms such as witch-hunt (Witch-hunt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), Inquisition etc. So its not an exclusively a Native American phenomenon. Humans being burnt on the pyre for the good of the society (with the backing of religion) is an unfortunately widespread tradition.


P.S: Mods, having some issue in quoting posts and the site is slow in general. Not sure if its just me!

Actually, I would take the claims of widespread human sacrifices with a pinch of salt. Demonization and spreading misinformation regarding native culture was quite prevalent in Europe to justify their actions through social Darwinism wherein the superior race annihilating the inferior race is only natural order of things( same logic were used to justify slavery in Africa and the conquest of Asia). In Europe there was a trend to diminish the New World as inferior to the old world. Case in point, in his book Histoire Naturelle, Comte de Buffon states that the Natives had no body hair, were effeminate and of course had small organs and lacked virility. The Dutch guy Comeille de Pauw says in his book Recherches Philosophiques sur les Américains :Recherches Philosophiques sur les Américains "so lacking in virility that they had milk in their breasts". And this was from their scientific community, not to mention what the opinion of average person totally unfamiliar with the country would be.

 

[Damian]

For God's sake, you yourself said it was meaningless:

And can you understand the context? Heliocentric theory was meaningless for defence of country, there were more important issues.

Same for natives, their relligion, architecture or callendars were meaningless for defending their lands, simple as that.

Keep in mind the context in which we are talking. First, you claimed (wrongly) that Native Americans "had no science". After I proved you wrong, you claimed (again wrongly) that "it didn't help them". Then you claimed that Native American science was useless because it didn't prevent them from being conquered (which is a ridiculous argument, since it means all science that is not related to military development is "useless"). But by the same token, the contribution of Copernicus was also useless (as you apparently agreed), because it did not prevent Poland from being partitioned and wiped off the world map. Thus, as per your own argument, if the Native Americans "had no science" because it didn't save them, then neither did the Poles, since it didn't save them either. So your argument that Native Americans are "primitive" for being conquered by Europeans is flawed, since the same arguments can also be applied to Poland. But once someone uses your same arguments against you, you throw a tantrum and accuse them of being "white-hating racists".

The problem is that you have problems with understanding the context of simple text.

How many times I need to say that natives were not primitive in intelectual way, but in civilization progress, which means they were vurnable to any more advanced civiliation which was better organized, armed, industralized etc.

Comparing natives to commonwealth is just flawed, even by scale, the wars we needed to fight on 3 fronts (or even 4 fronts) and how long we were able to hold on any agression on our borders to the point where economy was incapable to fund our army and we were forced to abandone further funding our most successfull formations the winged hussars who were responsible for all military victories we had.

As I said we had the best cavalry in Europe, this was our strenght and weakness. Winged Hussars were incredibly expensive units, simply because they were not funded by state, but each hussar funded his horse and equipment from his own pocket, when economy started to collapse, this rich elite of our society started to disappear, when they disappear, we lost that single element that was capable to complete any task given by commanders, and win every fight.

And natives? Natives neither had economy, neither army, they had really nothing to even try to fight with colonists and their army's.

A superpower is a state which possesses sufficient hard and soft power to influence political events on a global scale. This means that the state possesses a powerful military capable of projecting power over large distances, as well as a culture/ideology which is influential throughout the world. There were only three states in human history that can be called "superpowers": the British Empire in the 19th and early 20th century, the Soviet Union in the 20th century, and the United States.

Poland was not fighting against any "superpowers" in the 17th or 18th century, because none existed.

Eh... as you wish, then they were European powers, Prussia, Sweden, Austro-Hungary and Russian Empire, try to fight for decades or even centuries on 4 fronts, I wonder how well you will fight back.

Translation: I have been proven wrong, and I no longer have an argument.

Funny, as you proved nothing besides your ignorance.

And I proved you wrong, by showing that they were NOT primitive from a "civilization progress" [sic] point of view. Read my previous posts again, especially when I compared the Aztec Empire to the Kingdom of Poland.

I read your posts and I see biased, frustrated person, who don't like Europeans.

Yes natives were primitive from civilization progress point of view.

Building piramides don't show how advanced you are.

Your country WAS wiped off the world map, in the late 18th century, by Russia, Prussia, and Austria, and it was again wiped off the map in 1939. The modern Polish nation-state is the result of the Soviet victory in WWII.

If you would understand moron the very obvious history, Poland was not wpided out from map, because even Nazis did not included whole our territory in to their. There was a part that was included, and the second part which was still Poland but occupied. Not to mention that our nation during both periods, was still fighting. What's more in both periods, we have form of underground state, especially during WWII we had whole underground state administration, army, goverment etc. Show me any other occupied nation which was capable to do the same?

And no, the modern Polish state is not a result of Soviet actions, it was PRL, today we live in a 3rd republic which was created by nation overtrhowing soviet puppets. Are you even capable to comprehend this?

Tough I know, we were never respected by most people on this planet, and I don't expect this to be changed quickly. But then again, you are the very proof of what is said about India's citizens around the world, which is pity, I expected something more.

 

[Tolaha]

@Damian: Using your own primitive standards to judge a civilization, can we safely conclude that the Afghans level of civilization approached that of the Soviets and that of the Americans, if not an outright edge over them?

 

[Tolaha]

The Afghans are one entity that I could think of who would meet @Damian's exclusive standards to judge a civilization!

How many times I need to say that natives were not primitive in intelectual way, but in civilization progress, which means they were vurnable to any more advanced civiliation which was better organized, armed, industralized etc.

 

[Damian]

@Damian: Using your own primitive standards to judge a civilization, can we safely conclude that the Afghans level of civilization approached that of the Soviets and that of the Americans, if not an outright edge over them?

This have completely no sence. Afghanistan in terms of civilization progress is more primitive than Soviet Union or today states of both Americas, it is that simple, which does not mean that Afghans as people are primitive, tough they definetely suffers from some primitive aspects of culture and relligion.

But I know you have problems with comprehending reality.

The Afghans are one entity that I could think of who would meet @Damian's exclusive standards to judge a civilization!

My standards are not exclusive but logical, although I understand that concept of logical thinking is rocket science to you.

 

[Tolaha]

How many times I need to say that natives were not primitive in intelectual way, but in civilization progress, which means they were vurnable to any more advanced civiliation which was better organized, armed, industralized etc.

Using your own primitive standards to judge a civilization, can we safely conclude that the Afghans level of civilization approached that of the Soviets and that of the Americans, if not an outright edge over them?

This have completely no sence. Afghanistan in terms of civilization progress is more primitive than Soviet Union or today states of both Americas, it is that simple, which does not mean that Afghans as people are primitive, tough they definetely suffers from some primitive aspects of culture and relligion.

But I know you have problems with comprehending reality.

@Damian: Forget my comprehension skills for a moment and go through the conversation marked above. Can you comprehend your own statements?

 

[Damian]

@Damian: Forget my comprehension skills for a moment and go through the conversation marked above. Can you comprehend your own statements?

You know, I really don't have idea how more simplified text I need to write untill you understand it, if you are not capable to understand such simple text, then do not talk at all.