Historically speaking, it heavily depended on where you were. Supposedly many East-Cast tribes, especially the Cherokee were already conglomerates of several other tribes.
Horses were also a new element in the world of Native Americans, and surely had a good bit to do with leveling the playing field between warring tribes.
All i’m saying is there’s no violence that westerners have done that wasn’t already done at some other time before they arrived. The difference is the distance, the scale and of course the cultural and ethnic differences. I’ve found that the more different the dominating group is from the victim group the more well atrocities are remembered. It’s still ethnically visible for hundreds upon hundreds of years. Like for instance the Aztecs were extremely brutal in wiping out other tribes and enslavement as well as torture but no one really complains about that today. It’s all a wash. Their people and the people they tormented are hard to tell apart now in contrast to people of Spanish dissent and of course to this day there’s a white preference in the region. It’s just easier to see and draw lines when people look more visibly different.
I see. There is no difference except for the differences.
Like for instance the Aztecs were extremely brutal in wiping out other tribes and enslavement as well as torture but no one really complains about that today.
In contrast to the Aztecs the colonial powers are still in power and are still enacting violence and genocide.
If you want to argue a point I did not make then that changes the discussion. My point was, and still is that these acts are not unique to westerners. There have been lands controlled by others much longer than 500 years. There’s been rape, genocide, enslavement, and torture long before a human set foot in Europe. These behaviors aren’t unique to white or European people or honestly even homo sapiens.
The main point is that genocide, rape, torture, war, murder, slavery and so on isn’t unique to western people or even homo sapiens. These are things humans and likely our ancestors have been doing before we ever left Africa.
It’s kinda been my one and only point this entire time that I keep just repeating, maybe with more verbosity which has spawned a lot of discussion not about the point I’m making.
So what, your point that these types of problems existed in some form before colonization and that they exist in other places means that there is no way colonization made things worse? Both things can’t be true?
And I guess you weren’t actually asking why people don’t harp on the Aztecs because you don’t actually care to learn?
It wasn’t really a small group of conquistadors that took down the Aztecs. It was the conquistadors along with a bunch of tribes that were willing to ally themselves with some strange men that spoke a different language and had a completely different culture. The conquistadors were able to find allies because of how horrible the Aztecs were.
European history is full of examples of tribes invading from somewhere else. Those invaders were doing so because they had to leave where they lived was invaded by someone else. It’s similar in pre-Columbian America.
It’s only when cities started having strong walls and organized militaries that the ethnic cleansing and genocide became less commonplace, enough so these atrocities became noteworthy and better documented. Humans are tribalistic and violent, there’s no special ethnicities that were above being that way.
Historically speaking, it heavily depended on where you were. Supposedly many East-Cast tribes, especially the Cherokee were already conglomerates of several other tribes.
Horses were also a new element in the world of Native Americans, and surely had a good bit to do with leveling the playing field between warring tribes.
source: old man wisdom, dyor
All i’m saying is there’s no violence that westerners have done that wasn’t already done at some other time before they arrived. The difference is the distance, the scale and of course the cultural and ethnic differences. I’ve found that the more different the dominating group is from the victim group the more well atrocities are remembered. It’s still ethnically visible for hundreds upon hundreds of years. Like for instance the Aztecs were extremely brutal in wiping out other tribes and enslavement as well as torture but no one really complains about that today. It’s all a wash. Their people and the people they tormented are hard to tell apart now in contrast to people of Spanish dissent and of course to this day there’s a white preference in the region. It’s just easier to see and draw lines when people look more visibly different.
I see. There is no difference except for the differences.
In contrast to the Aztecs the colonial powers are still in power and are still enacting violence and genocide.
If you want to argue a point I did not make then that changes the discussion. My point was, and still is that these acts are not unique to westerners. There have been lands controlled by others much longer than 500 years. There’s been rape, genocide, enslavement, and torture long before a human set foot in Europe. These behaviors aren’t unique to white or European people or honestly even homo sapiens.
I was directly replying to a statement you made. Did I misunderstand that statement?
The main point is that genocide, rape, torture, war, murder, slavery and so on isn’t unique to western people or even homo sapiens. These are things humans and likely our ancestors have been doing before we ever left Africa.
Okay but that’s not what I replying to.
It’s kinda been my one and only point this entire time that I keep just repeating, maybe with more verbosity which has spawned a lot of discussion not about the point I’m making.
So what, your point that these types of problems existed in some form before colonization and that they exist in other places means that there is no way colonization made things worse? Both things can’t be true?
And I guess you weren’t actually asking why people don’t harp on the Aztecs because you don’t actually care to learn?
It wasn’t really a small group of conquistadors that took down the Aztecs. It was the conquistadors along with a bunch of tribes that were willing to ally themselves with some strange men that spoke a different language and had a completely different culture. The conquistadors were able to find allies because of how horrible the Aztecs were.
European history is full of examples of tribes invading from somewhere else. Those invaders were doing so because they had to leave where they lived was invaded by someone else. It’s similar in pre-Columbian America.
It’s only when cities started having strong walls and organized militaries that the ethnic cleansing and genocide became less commonplace, enough so these atrocities became noteworthy and better documented. Humans are tribalistic and violent, there’s no special ethnicities that were above being that way.
No, the difference is the level of violence. They also brought germ warfare and gunpowder.
That isn’t really what I was arguing but if you want to change the discussion then I’m open to it.
?