How’s the genocide of a whole continent “average history”?
The magnitude of destruction in the Americas is not common and this downplay of a continent-wide genocide is annoying.
Because you’re lumping in the unavoidable disease transfer of first contact with intentional conquest and violence. Take away that, which was going to happen whenever any Afro-Eurasian community first interacted with people from the americas, and you get a very comparable situation to many things throughout history.
The genocide didn’t happen solely after the first contact, the massacre of natives lasted centuries. Many nations were wiped out in the XIX century.
And a quote for you
Proponents of the default position emphasize attrition by disease despite other causes equally deadly, if not more so. In doing so they refuse to accept that the colonization of America was genocidal by plan, not simply the tragic fate of populations lacking immunity to disease.
Did disease not account for the vast majority of death? Even still, I never discounted the brutal conquest that was engaged in. My point is that Europeans aren’t special for brutal conquests. Imperial Japan is a prime example this.
You’re also treating a bunch of competing individuals as a hive mind with a coherent plan. I find that “grand scheming entity” kind of narrative to be just as naive as the people buying into racist narratives. It doesn’t make sense when it’s Jewish people and they’re a smaller demographic than “Western European”.
…ok? I guess I don’t get why there needs to be any comparison, since it inevitably ends up sounding like “oh, well this one wasn’t as bad as that one. Happens all the time.”
Other examples existing does not change that it is historically unprecedented and far from the norm. And its just a really strange and pointless thing to point.
Person A: “my dad died in a car bomb”
Person B: “ehh, average family death”
A: “uhh what?”
B: "well, there are other examples of people dying in car bombs, dude! "
You’re correcting me saying that expelling native populations time and time again from every land they go to, then genociding their entire population to the point of near extinction, using the most horrific methods and over centuries, is more akin to dying of old age than dying by a bomb?
Please read that again and confirm to me that’s what you’re saying, because it sounds absolutely ridiculous. This scale and this horror are not common historical occurrence.
That’s correct, humans have used the cutting edge methods to drive out and destroy native populations in the name of expansion, for thousands of years.
I am sorry to restate this again, but the expulsion, genocide on the scale (both in size and horror) is historically unprecedented. You’re going to have to prove this to me if you think it’s a common occurrence instead of continuing to repeat it.
And for the record, no one here is talking about small scale expulsion. I am talking about expulsion AND genocide on the same scale and horror committed here. Show me that it is a common occurrence and I will concede.
Did they? I was under the impression they came in, did a conquer, and basically left with the conquered understanding that the horde’d be back for their tribute.
Yeah they obliterated smaller outside towns to scare the bigger cities into giving them shit. They killed a lot but I’m not sure it counts as genocide since the eradication of people wasn’t the point.
How’s the genocide of a whole continent “average history”? The magnitude of destruction in the Americas is not common and this downplay of a continent-wide genocide is annoying.
Because you’re lumping in the unavoidable disease transfer of first contact with intentional conquest and violence. Take away that, which was going to happen whenever any Afro-Eurasian community first interacted with people from the americas, and you get a very comparable situation to many things throughout history.
It wasn’t just disease that killed them. See: the Trail of Tears
I never said it was the only thing so I wouldn’t disagree with you on that.
The genocide didn’t happen solely after the first contact, the massacre of natives lasted centuries. Many nations were wiped out in the XIX century.
And a quote for you
Professor Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz
Did disease not account for the vast majority of death? Even still, I never discounted the brutal conquest that was engaged in. My point is that Europeans aren’t special for brutal conquests. Imperial Japan is a prime example this.
You’re also treating a bunch of competing individuals as a hive mind with a coherent plan. I find that “grand scheming entity” kind of narrative to be just as naive as the people buying into racist narratives. It doesn’t make sense when it’s Jewish people and they’re a smaller demographic than “Western European”.
Look, the reality is that disease did kill the majority of natives.
The genocide after that is not made any less horrible by that reality, but it was made POSSIBLE because of it.
If European settlers had to deal with the full original population, things would have been VERY different.
There’s strong evidence the disease was on purpos- Ah who am I fucking kidding, the colonizers flat out admitted it.
Because there are other examples of continent wide genocide.
Humans are the fucking worst and it isn’t unique to one area
…ok? I guess I don’t get why there needs to be any comparison, since it inevitably ends up sounding like “oh, well this one wasn’t as bad as that one. Happens all the time.”
I’m suggesting that across history IS common.
I’m not celebrating it.
Other examples existing does not change that it is historically unprecedented and far from the norm. And its just a really strange and pointless thing to point.
Person A: “my dad died in a car bomb” Person B: “ehh, average family death” A: “uhh what?” B: "well, there are other examples of people dying in car bombs, dude! "
The root comment was “average history”. I replied to someone suggesting it wasnt, and disagreed with them.
To use your analogy,
"My dad died of old age.
What? That’s insane no one dies of that.
No, it’s pretty normal"
You’re correcting me saying that expelling native populations time and time again from every land they go to, then genociding their entire population to the point of near extinction, using the most horrific methods and over centuries, is more akin to dying of old age than dying by a bomb?
Please read that again and confirm to me that’s what you’re saying, because it sounds absolutely ridiculous. This scale and this horror are not common historical occurrence.
That’s correct, humans have used the cutting edge methods to drive out and destroy native populations in the name of expansion, for thousands of years.
I’m not celebrating it.
I am sorry to restate this again, but the expulsion, genocide on the scale (both in size and horror) is historically unprecedented. You’re going to have to prove this to me if you think it’s a common occurrence instead of continuing to repeat it.
And for the record, no one here is talking about small scale expulsion. I am talking about expulsion AND genocide on the same scale and horror committed here. Show me that it is a common occurrence and I will concede.
The Mongols genocided two continents and a sub continent.
Did they? I was under the impression they came in, did a conquer, and basically left with the conquered understanding that the horde’d be back for their tribute.
Yeah they obliterated smaller outside towns to scare the bigger cities into giving them shit. They killed a lot but I’m not sure it counts as genocide since the eradication of people wasn’t the point.
Tell that to the something like 50 million people they killed while doing so.
You have to be deeply ignorant, or some kind of idiot, to give the Mongols a pass while condemning western Europeans.
I’m not giving anyone a “pass” to genocide, only attempting to be very clear about what the precise definition of it is.
Everyone killing people for their stuff sucks, but humans were doing that shit forever.
Not every generation was loading specific people into trains and camps just to gather them for removal from the genetic code.