Manifest Destiny

[evangilder]

I think if the indigenous populations of North America had had an immigration policy, they would have probably been better off. Seriously, they trusted the white man as for the most part, they had not seen deceit the way it was dealt out to them by the white man. Does that make the US any better or any worse than the other countries. I don't think that anyone can make that judgement.

 

[Anonymous]

RG, you forget that we cannot judge the Romans by modern socio-political values. In fact, you're last two posts have been totally contradictory. First you said:

'The Aztec's were about a corrupt a regime as the World has ever seen. Conquering and subjugating them was fair play within the rules of life they themselves believed in and lived by.'

Good point - and we must accept that the Conquista, while bloody and brutal, was a product of it's time. But then you say:

'evangilder wrote:
I think it is safe to say that every country that has been an empire or super-power has done some bad things. I don't think anyone can make a determination as to which country was worse.


Well, I think you can.

Clearly the Romans were increadibly brutal. In the silver mines of Spain, they forced slaves to dig mines so they could divert water to tear down a mountain to expose the silver. Tens of thousands of slaves lived underground for years without seeing sunlight. When the Romans were ready to divert the water, they didn't even spend the two to three days it would have taken to get the slaves out of the mines.

There is evil and there is EVIL. '

By the Roman's estimation, slaves weren't even human beings, so there destruction in the mines was of no moral relevance. Why is it, when you argue about the Aztecs, you are willing to judge them in terms of thier own morality, yet with the Romans you insist on judging by a contemporary morality which the Romans would have found laughable?

You say you believe you can point to one country as being 'worse' than another in colonial history. Maybe you can: but only if you seriously believe you can impose your post-colonialist, Christian-based morality on 2500 years of colonial development. You simply cannot judge other cultures in other periods by standards which they had never heard of or explicitly rejected. The only place for contemporary morality in history is in contemporary events. To use it to judge the past is to condemn our predecessors for doing the right thing, as they saw it. And all any of us can do, is to do the right thing, as we see it. You should hope history isnt as damning of us as you have been of the Romans.

It is the degree to which a subjugated people are in fact treated as animals, or in some cases, worse than animals.

And the cases you've sited are very different. It was one thing for the Conquestedor's to conquer and dominate the culture of the Aztec's. It'd be quite another for them to have then used them as slaves (which they did) and dispose of them en-mass for little or no reason without reserve. I won't say the Spanish did not do this in some cases, but when they did it was on a much smaller scale and it was hidden because they knew it was unacceptable behavior.

Once the Spanish conquered Mexico, some measure of rights (though minimal) were conveyed to the subjects. The Roman's on the other hand, conveyed no rights whatsoever to the conquered, and they would and did kill slaves for no other reason than excess supply and convienience.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[Anonymous]

I think if the indigenous populations of North America had had an immigration policy, they would have probably been better off. Seriously, they trusted the white man as for the most part, they had not seen deceit the way it was dealt out to them by the white man. Does that make the US any better or any worse than the other countries. I don't think that anyone can make that judgement.

Well, I am not going to say that the US was right in how it dealt with the native population. However, the fact is the Indian's were not nearly so "friendly" as commonly depicted.

There were a few tribes, particularly in the Massechuttes area, that were indeed suprisingly accepting of the white man early on. But these were the exception rather than the rule. You pretty much see some meaure of "peaceful" behavior amounst some of the tribes on the east coast, particularly those who were in the initial phases of agricultural society. But for the most part the Indians of central and northern America were war-like nomadic tribes who raided and plundered each other when capable, and who applied this same behavior to the white man when he was encountered.

Headed westward, you do not find "peaceful" indian tribes again until you reach the north-west tribes in the Oregon and Washington area and the Navahoe in the south-west. The Soix, Shianne, Blackfoot, Crow, etc.. were all rather warlike tribes, who believed and lived by the credo that might makes right.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[evangilder]

The Navajo were not always peaceful. But think about it, yes there were tribes that were warring each other, but there were many that were peaceful people. What made them war-like was what was done to them. There was cooperation and trade amongst many of the tribes as a means of survival. Their land was stolen, people killed, there sources of food and water taken away, their language and customs also taken away.

That is what made them war-like.

 

[Anonymous]

Even,

If you research the actual history of the American indians you will see that many of the tribes, especially those in the East, were in fact war-like before the white man ever appeared on American shores. A few regions were relatively peaceful, espeically the North-West Tribes, but most were not.

As for he Navajo's, there appears to be a period where they'd been conquered and ruled by an ousted segment of the Aztec's. During this period, they lived under a harsh rule and indeed were not "peaceful". But this lasted for only a relatively short part of their history, and before and after this period, they were in fact quite peaceful peoples.

Also you have to remember that small-pox and other diseases ravaged the American Indians far worse than violence by the white man. Had this not happened, American history would be very different.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[Nonskimmer]

It was my understanding that small-pox was deliberately introduced to many native tribes through infected trade goods from white men, in order to decimate entire populations. Seems pretty violent in it's own right.
Even if it wasn't entirely intentional, I could see how it would turn natives against white settlers.

 

[plan_D]

Who said that North America was their for U.S rule? Are you getting the idea of that being 'national' expansion beause of the geography of North America?
Whoever said that California or Texas was a part of the U.S? It was international expansion, they brought it under U.S rule and from modern geography you call it national expansion.

The settlers in North America were an invading force, it's as simple as that. The Natives were there first and what became the U.S slaughtered them.

The point of this and all other threads in here is to show that the U.S is no better than Europe, as you seem to think it is RG. It was imperialist and expansionist just like Europe was, only Europe did it on a much larger scale.

 

[evangilder]

They certainly had their quarrels over land and water and hunting grounds, but to depict them as pure warriors is a mis-characterization. Not only have I done considerable reading about Native Americans, but I have stories handed down to me by my ancestral elders. What you depict as "warring tribes" was not quite that before the white man showed up. Then they got an education in dishonesty, greed and the worst that man can offer. Promises were made and broken while land was taken, people killed and a number of other problems. How long could they stay downtrodden before they fought back?

You will received a much more complete history of the Navajo by spending a few weeks with them at Canyon de Chelly. The Spanish conquistadors damn near wiped them out looking for the seven cities of gold. Kit Carson did his best and found that they could not be defeated. I spent several weeks there visiting an old military friend while volunteering to help them build their ceremonial huts, called Hogans (pronounce ho-gone).

NS is right about the small pox. Blankets were "given" to the native Americans that had been used while treating small-pox patients. This is likely the first documented case of biological warfare. Thousands died from this and it would not have affected the eventual outcome. Native Americans were "savages" that had to be dealt with. That would have been the case whether they were wiped out by disease or through warfare.

 

[Anonymous]

It was my understanding that small-pox was deliberately introduced to many native tribes through infected trade goods from white men, in order to decimate entire populations. Seems pretty violent in it's own right.
Even if it wasn't entirely intentional, I could see how it would turn natives against white settlers.

Yes, the British did trade some blankets to a tribe that they knew were infected with Small Pox. That only caused an outbreak where it would benefit the British at that time.

But given the nature of Small Pox, in the end, the disease was going to spread to the Native Americans regardless of what anyone did.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[Anonymous]

Who said that North America was their for U.S rule? Are you getting the idea of that being 'national' expansion beause of the geography of North America?
Whoever said that California or Texas was a part of the U.S? It was international expansion, they brought it under U.S rule and from modern geography you call it national expansion.

The settlers in North America were an invading force, it's as simple as that. The Natives were there first and what became the U.S slaughtered them.

The point of this and all other threads in here is to show that the U.S is no better than Europe, as you seem to think it is RG. It was imperialist and expansionist just like Europe was, only Europe did it on a much larger scale.

I'm not disagreeing with you about the US espansion to the west. But surely you can see a difference between colonial expansion and national expansion? Hmmm... maybe not.

As for "whoever said Californai and Texas were part of the US?", that was something to be decided. In the end, the decision was that they were.

It was indeed expansion, but it was not "Imperialism", which implies the domination and manipulation of the internal workins of other cultures.

 

[evangilder]

We most certainly did dominate and manipulate the Native Americans, did we not?

 

[Anonymous]

They certainly had their quarrels over land and water and hunting grounds, but to depict them as pure warriors is a mis-characterization. Not only have I done considerable reading about Native Americans, but I have stories handed down to me by my ancestral elders. What you depict as "warring tribes" was not quite that before the white man showed up.

Many were. Quarrels over land and water, and raiding of other tribes for plunder and especially women, were common amoungst many tribes.

Then they got an education in dishonesty, greed and the worst that man can offer. Promises were made and broken while land was taken, people killed and a number of other problems. How long could they stay downtrodden before they fought back?

Most certainly. My point is simply that many of the tribes, especially those in the east, lived by the rule that the strong had the right to dominate the weak before the white man ever made an appearance.

You will received a much more complete history of the Navajo by spending a few weeks with them at Canyon de Chelly. The Spanish conquistadors damn near wiped them out looking for the seven cities of gold. Kit Carson did his best and found that they could not be defeated. I spent several weeks there visiting an old military friend while volunteering to help them build their ceremonial huts, called Hogans (pronounce ho-gone).

I'm not disputing this at all, I simply pointed out that the Navajo were a peaceful tribe excepting a short period when they appear to have been under the rule of an ousted segment of the Aztec's. I assume you have seen the recent info on cannabilism amounst the Navajo during this period?

NS is right about the small pox. Blankets were "given" to the native Americans that had been used while treating small-pox patients. This is likely the first documented case of biological warfare. Thousands died from this and it would not have affected the eventual outcome. Native Americans were "savages" that had to be dealt with. That would have been the case whether they were wiped out by disease or through warfare.

90% of the Native American population was wiped out or crippled by Small Pox. Had there been 10 times as many Indians to contend with the American government would have had to deal with the Indains much differently.

=S=

Lunatic

PS: I have Apache (1/16th) and Cherokee (tiny %) in my anscestry, so like you I have had some interest in researching Native American history when I was younger.

 

[Anonymous]

We most certainly did dominate and manipulate the Native Americans, did we not?

Well, yes but not in the way I'm refering too. We did not force them to adopt a government which allowed us to control their society intact to our benefit. US domination was more of the form of dealing with a nuscense, where European domination was more of the form of enslaving a culture.

 

[plan_D]

The decision to make California and Texas part of the U.S was made through war. By destroying the inhabinants of those, what became, states you secured their place in the U.S.

Instead of bringing those cultures under your rule, you destroyed them. The British history would be much more frowned upon if we slaughtered the Africans and Indians into near extinction.
Your idea of the U.S being somewhat better because it didn't enslave the native culture is laughable because you destroyed it instead!

 

[Anonymous]

The decision to make California and Texas part of the U.S was made through war. By destroying the inhabinants of those, what became, states you secured their place in the U.S.

Instead of bringing those cultures under your rule, you destroyed them. The British history would be much more frowned upon if we slaughtered the Africans and Indians into near extinction.
Your idea of the U.S being somewhat better because it didn't enslave the native culture is laughable because you destroyed it instead!

In California and Texas?

And I didn't say "better", I said different. Until the modern paradime, the strong have always had the right to displace the weak. This did not change until the 20th century.

 

[plan_D]

In California and Texas you removed the Mexican inhabitants. You secured your ownership through war. It could be compared to England taking Scotland and Wales in many ways. They were on our island, was it our right to take them?

Until the modern paradime, the strong have always had the right to displace the weak.

Where is your argument against the British then? The British were the strongest in the world from the 16th Century until the 19th Century, we had the right to displace anyone, enslave anyone or slaughter anyone we wanted.

Keep in mind that I care little about the U.S acts against Native Americans or against any other country or culture. It's the way the world worked back then. You need to understand that America is no better than Britain, Britain is just older and the further you go back in history the harsher it gets to the weaker.

 

[Anonymous]

In California and Texas you removed the Mexican inhabitants. You secured your ownership through war. It could be compared to England taking Scotland and Wales in many ways. They were on our island, was it our right to take them?

Wrong. The Mexican's in California and Texas remained after the war. Only those that fought on the side of Mexico were, in a few cases, forced to leave. Most stayed and in most cases became American citizens.

Until the modern paradime, the strong have always had the right to displace the weak.

Where is your argument against the British then? The British were the strongest in the world from the 16th Century until the 19th Century, we had the right to displace anyone, enslave anyone or slaughter anyone we wanted.

Keep in mind that I care little about the U.S acts against Native Americans or against any other country or culture. It's the way the world worked back then. You need to understand that America is no better than Britain, Britain is just older and the further you go back in history the harsher it gets to the weaker.

Exactly where did I make such an argument w.r.t. pre WWI behavior? It's the post WWI behaivor that I was refering to.

=S=

Lunatic

 

[plan_D]

You still made some Mexicans leave and you stole their land. California and Texas just became a colony of America that is hidden by calling them a state.

This all started when you had a go at Britain for the way she treated cultures she conquered!

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I think if the indigenous populations of North America had had an immigration policy, they would have probably been better off. Seriously, they trusted the white man as for the most part, they had not seen deceit the way it was dealt out to them by the white man. Does that make the US any better or any worse than the other countries. I don't think that anyone can make that judgement.

Well, I am not going to say that the US was right in how it dealt with the native population. However, the fact is the Indian's were not nearly so "friendly" as commonly depicted.

There were a few tribes, particularly in the Massechuttes area, that were indeed suprisingly accepting of the white man early on. But these were the exception rather than the rule. You pretty much see some meaure of "peaceful" behavior amounst some of the tribes on the east coast, particularly those who were in the initial phases of agricultural society. But for the most part the Indians of central and northern America were war-like nomadic tribes who raided and plundered each other when capable, and who applied this same behavior to the white man when he was encountered.

Headed westward, you do not find "peaceful" indian tribes again until you reach the north-west tribes in the Oregon and Washington area and the Navahoe in the south-west. The Soix, Shianne, Blackfoot, Crow, etc.. were all rather warlike tribes, who believed and lived by the credo that might makes right.

=S=

Lunatic

Would you be friendly if someone came and was trying to push you off of your land. I wouldn't. I can understand why they were not "peaceful".

Well, yes but not in the way I'm refering too. We did not force them to adopt a government which allowed us to control their society intact to our benefit. US domination was more of the form of dealing with a nuscense, where European domination was more of the form of enslaving a culture.

Nuscence? Are you talking about the native americans?

 

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

We most certainly did dominate and manipulate the Native Americans, did we not?

I do agree. We often became savages ourselves. We often kicked them when they were down.

It's pretty interesting how they are such good soldiers in the US Army after what we done. They helped a lot in WWII with the code talking.I think Native Americans still have the warrior spirit in them. Our goverment could never quite crush it and now I don't think we want to!