Eurocentrism

[Original Alear]

The claim that blankets were planned to be used to spread disease is a myth.

Are you sure about that? Relevant links:

http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/amherst/lord_jeff.html

http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/amherst/34_41_114_fn.jpeg

[Snowy_One]

Snowy, just so you know, as far as disease goes I'm pretty sure that smallpox infested blankets were given to native americans by europeans intentionally in an effort to spread disease. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure that the disease(s?) that wiped out tons of the aztecs were not intended. As far as disease that was spread here in general, I don't know if much of it was intentional or not.

I'm fully aware of the blankets thing. However its important to remember that the indian relationship with disease is far more than just those blankets.

Unrelated, but while looking this up, I found out that Chicken Pox was actually considered to be a form of Smallpox for a time. Who knew? History is full of interesting stuff! It's why people should really take the time to learn it.

[Yojinbo]

Intentional or not, there's no denying that the european settlers played a major role in the de facto extermination of the native americans. What's even worse though is how poorly native americans are being treated to this day and how these atricious crimes are still not accounted for. Just another example of how much eurocentrism distorts our view on history.

[Alazen]

Even with the few letters that have been found, there are not enough grounds to accept that Bouqet's forces actually spread smallpox using blankets.

[Rapier]

how poorly native americans are being treated to this day and how these atricious crimes are still not accounted for

two sides are on war, one sides wins and kills part of the other side, and somewhere along the way I miss where the winning side is a monster responsible for atrocious crimes (read: killing people that were trying to kill you)

it's not like they were willing to share their lands and play together around campfires. None of them were the good/bad guys: either the europeans were killed by natives, or the natives were killed by europeans (of course the descendants of the europeans like this more than the natives; it'd be the other way around if it had been otherwise, that is normal). The noble savage myth needs to go.

Edited December 7, 2015 by Rapier

[Yojinbo]

When did genocide cease to be an atrocious crime again?

[blah the Prussian]

two sides are on war, one sides wins and kills part of the other side, and somewhere along the way I miss where the winning side is a monster responsible for atrocious crimes (read: killing people that were trying to kill you)

it's not like they were willing to share their lands and play together around campfires. None of them were the good/bad guys: either the europeans were killed by natives, or the natives were killed by europeans (of course the descendants of the europeans like this more than the natives; it'd be the other way around if it had been otherwise, that is normal). The noble savage myth needs to go.

So why were they obligated to share their lands exactly? Also, I don't think that children were trying to kill the colonists.

[Integrity]

two sides are on war, one sides wins and kills part of the other side, and somewhere along the way I miss where the winning side is a monster responsible for atrocious crimes (read: killing people that were trying to kill you)

it's not like they were willing to share their lands and play together around campfires. None of them were the good/bad guys: either the europeans were killed by natives, or the natives were killed by europeans (of course the descendants of the europeans like this more than the natives; it'd be the other way around if it had been otherwise, that is normal). The noble savage myth needs to go.

how much do you actually know about how native americans are still treated?

like holy shit dude, there aren't many historical objective truths but "white people did massive fucking crime when colonizing america" is about as close as you can get.

[Alazen]

Colonization and migration with population displacement has long been bloody. Whether it's a non-state society killing men and claiming women of a territory or a state like the Ming crushing an indigenous people like the Miao or the Mongol Horde's conquests. Assorted modern nations have a history of fighting between ethnic and/or ideological groups (see the Ainu).

A noticeable amount of cultures and/or civilizations in this world had cases of inflicting on brutality on opposing ethnic or ideological groups. Namely if there's a situation of one group moving onto a territory occupied by. Outside of Antarctica, you can expect to find bloodshed.

[Rapier]

how much do you actually know about how native americans are still treated?

like holy shit dude, there aren't many historical objective truths but "white people did massive fucking crime when colonizing america" is about as close as you can get.

I wasn't talking about how they're still being treated, it seems you've missed the point.

that's the crime I've been questioning. It is very easy to play off as an intelectual, sensible person by claiming mean white europeans killed poor innocent natives, but I am not going to take the easy, intelectually acclaimed path. Very well, indulge me: How is it a crime to kill in a conflict versus people who are also trying to kill you?

I mean, if you're talking about native american slavery and perhaps other unnecessary and unjustifiable offenders, then I agree.

[blah the Prussian]

How is it unjustifiable to try to kill people who took your land? And you do realize that people don't get worked up over the stuff you seem to think was okay, they get worked up over shit like Wounded Knee, right?

[Rapier]

How is it unjustifiable to try to kill people who took your land? And you do realize that people don't get worked up over the stuff you seem to think was okay, they get worked up over shit like Wounded Knee, right?

first question: It is not unjustifiable, also you did not answer my question and this is in no way a rebuttal

second question: I agree with them about these offenders

[Alazen]

It should be pointed that the colonization of the Americas was dependent on indigenous aid. Whether it was higher ups selling to settlers for Eurasian goods, or using military aid to deal with rivals if not quash unrest (let alone the situation of the Spanish's indigenous allies), there's no doubt that the colonization wouldn't have gone how it did without such aid. Well that, and disease.

It's actually rather Eurocentric to play up European technological and/or military edges (along with brutality) in post-Columbian colonization.

Edited December 7, 2015 by Alazen

[blah the Prussian]

first question: It is not unjustifiable, also you did not answer my question and this is in no way a rebuttal

second question: I agree with them about these offenders

Yes, that's my point. You seem to agree that there was nothing wrong with colonists defending their homes. What most people take issue with is when the colonists utterly eradicated the tribes something completely unneeded, and annihilated their culture. Hopefully you take issue with that.

[Alazen]

The history of post-Columbian colonization of the can't really be called ''White and Black'' or ''European VS Indigenous''. Actually, history after Columbus' voyage can't really be framed as ''White and Black'' or ''White People VS Not White People'' even if too many tumblr posters pretend otherwise.

Edited December 7, 2015 by Alazen

[Rapier]

What most people take issue with is when the colonists utterly eradicated the tribes, something completely unneeded, and annihilated their culture. Hopefully you take issue with that.

I don't know whether it was completely unneeded, to be honest, looking at it from a pragmatical view. As terrible as it is (I share the repulse for mass genocide), isn't this the nature of war? If the tribes could, I don't doubt they'd do the same to the invaders (since, well, wars between tribes and eradications existed, and "their" territory was taken from others who were not so lucky). It is best to make sure an enemy won't rise up again, from a pragmatical point of view. And we should not judge the past as if we had the same post-WW2 human rights treaties existing at that point of history, as these notions did not exist. If I could, then I'd blame our ancestors for a lot of things, slavery being the first to come in mind.

Nations were built from this eradication of ethnicities and expansionism. The proccess is not pretty (as a terrible comparisson, like sausages) nor moral (no reasonable person can ever advocate that these actions were ethically acceptable), but necessary (since everyone has needs and we live in a world with scarcity rather than abundance, which leads people to fight for what they want/have, something especially true during those times, when conflicts were bloodier and messier).

so, tl;dr

"do you have issues with that"

yes, I dislike genocides

"so, was it unjustifiable"

no, these men of the past did not have the same post-WW2 human rights notions that we do, therefore they're not to be morally blamed from our modern views. They did what seemed more pruddish in a scenario where they were surrounded by hostiles (who could've utterly defeated them if they did not help by joining europeans on wars, participating on the exterminations and anihilations of cultures that "mean white men" are blamed for, and other less noble savage-ish things). If anything I am just glad that mercantilism is gone and we have a better economic system that does not require so much violent expansionism to earn resources and allocate needs ("oh but what about the iraq war" nevermind).

Edited December 7, 2015 by Rapier

[Alazen]

A historian's approach:

The process by which specific historical content is given to abstract moral conceptions is a historical process; indeed, our moral judgements are made within a conceptual framework which is itself the creation of history.
-E. H. Carr, What is History, 2nd ed. (Basingstoke, 1986), p. 76.

A historian who uses terms like 'wicked' or 'evil' about a person or persons in the past will only succeed in looking ridiculous."
Richard J. Evans, In Defence of History, 2nd ed. (London, 2000), p. 51.

[Tetragrammaton]

What's about the African?

Did the Great White Europeans enslave them because they tried to kill them too?

[Rapier]

What's about the African?

Did the Great White Europeans enslave them because they tried to kill them too?

Africans enslaved each other (the ones who weren't killed in wars were enslaved to serve the winners instead), and in turn sold them to europeans for profit (an act that does not in any way justify slavery, btw). That practice was common in african cultures.

And I dont think europeans are better than anyone as people, as a side note. Bullshit like the Manifest Destiny is ridiculous.

Edited December 8, 2015 by Rapier

[Integrity]

I mean, if you're talking about native american slavery and perhaps other unnecessary and unjustifiable offenders, then I agree.

yeah i was referencing slavery and the forced sterilization of native american women and forced migration and annihilation of entire tribes and smallpox blankets and shit

also lol at me "trying to take an intellectual, sensible person" stance tbh

EDIT: you're also really focused on the 'noble savage' myth like anybody actually thinks that. the things we did and do to native americans are fucked up irregardless of what you think about the noble savage myth.

Edited December 8, 2015 by Integrity

[blah the Prussian]

Ah, Africa! Lets also talk about "poor little Belgium" responsible for one of the worst genocides in history. They deserved the German invasion. Oh, and the idea that the Indians posed any threat whatsoever to the US is absurd. The US should have just stayed on what it had originally.

[Radiant head]

yeah i was referencing slavery and the forced sterilization of native american women and forced migration and annihilation of entire tribes and smallpox blankets and shit

also lol at me "trying to take an intellectual, sensible person" stance tbh

EDIT: you're also really focused on the 'noble savage' myth like anybody actually thinks that. the things we did and do to native americans are fucked up irregardless of what you think about the noble savage myth.

Thank you, I was about to lose my shit here.

Like, how dare those redskins not want to give up their land and right to existence to those totally not-genocidal explorers.

[Rapier]

Thank you, I was about to lose my shit here.

Like, how dare those redskins not want to give up their land and right to existence to those totally not-genocidal explorers.

Had you done so, you'd have missed the point entirely.

I agree that these things are bad, my bad for the misunderstanding. What I question is, given the time period these atrocities were done, if these 21st century moral notions that we share existed among these men. In other words, if they could've acted differently, given the setting and context they lived on, which heavily influences human behavior and makes us think deplorable actions are "normal". That's what the moral judgment argument I brought up was all about.

Edited December 22, 2015 by Rapier

[blah the Prussian]

So do you think that the atrocities of the Mongols and the Crusaders should be excused? It was normal for the time after all. Yes I am bringing up old shame for me here.

[Snowy_One]

So do you think that the atrocities of the Mongols and the Crusaders should be excused? It was normal for the time after all. Yes I am bringing up old shame for me here.

I don't think he's trying to excuse them. I think he's trying to say that the notion of it being inexcusable has come about because of our current perceptions. Maybe what they did was excusable, maybe it wasn't, but to impose a modern ideology onto a time period where things were simply different is irrational. What the mongols did back then was inexcusable to the modern sensibilities and was likely considered to be horrifying even back then to everyone except the Mongols (pyramids of human skulls?). What the Crusaders did may or may not have been normal for the time (not going to get involved in a in-depth study of medieval war practices ATM); but to have such things happen via the pope using politics to whip up religious fervor in a crusade would likely be scowled upon even by the people of the time back then. Especially considering how much harm the Crusaders, either intentionally or unintentionally, did to THEIR OWN CITIES during the Crusades is astounding.

From a modern perspective we consider it horrible. From a feudal perspective things were different but, had the inner workings been known, even the people of the times would likely have considered the Crusades to be 'bad'. However, even if that were untrue, our current notion is one that does not approve of things like this. Ironically this notion is one held mainly by westernized nations. The very people that people are more than willing to jump down the throat of in regards to its human rights record.