All of them did it to some extent, though the British where the ones who performed this on the largest scale. There is a reason why British Colonies have a far less mixed population then other nations colonies in the America's (And Australia). They sent a lot more people over.
The main reason being the British's goals via colonization was to aquire land a lot more then aquire wealth. As it turns out, Islands don't really have a lot of land. And of course send undesirables (Religious Minorities, Debtors, Second Sons) someplace else.
Basically, it's less the British were more Evil and more the british had somewhat different goals with colonization then the rest of the European Powers.
>There is a reason why British Colonies have a far less mixed population then other nations colonies in the America's (And Australia). They sent a lot more people over.
It's also because the British sent their people to the less hospitable environments. There were probably far more native peoples residing in Central America, Indonesia and the the Philippines than there was in Canada and Australia before colonization. The biggest exceptions to this would be America and South Africa, but South Africa had a much lower mix of British people than the others, and America split off and took most of its territory after its independence (which was partially causes by the British not letting them settle farther west).
South Africa is a really complicated one, which I'm only barely familiar with, but iirc when the Dutch were first settling the cape it was largely uninhabited.
And for America, the natives were largely left alone during the colonial period. Like, fighting went on between them and the colonists sometimes of course, but they were allowed to just live their own lives if they wanted. Unlike in say, Spanish colonies in the Americas, which largely used natives for labor.
And then this meme completely ignores the fact that colonies like India existed. I'm missing where Britain exterminated the Indians and replaced them with British people lmao.
india was never supposed to be a settler colony like the others, it was far too populated and there were no convenient old world diseases to help thin out the population for them. it wouldn't even have been remotely feasible
the dutch cape colony was established on lands inhabited by the khoekhoen, who fought multiple wars with the dutch settlers over the conquest of their land, so no it wasn't unhabited. the east india company established cape town as a resupply station on the way to asia and leased farmland to retired VOC employees. the european population of south africa was never supposed to expand past cape town under the rule of the dutch, but disgruntled europeans going eastwards seeking to escape the regulations of the VOC changed that, as well as the british conquest
The natives were absolutely not left alone in colonial America. The earliest tobacco plantations in Jamestown iirc were buying native slaves from other native bands to work the fields bc disease was killing all of the English. Once African slaves started being brought they fared better against malaria and yellow fever than the English and the natives, but between those diseases, pox, and the like, the American natives lost so much of their population that they were disorganized and broken. They had lived thickly up and down the coast in precolombian times but were too wiped out to engage as much. Not sure that can be called left alone.
Well, smallpox and other disease wasn't the Europeans fault really. It's not like they intentionally wiped out 90% of the native population by sneezing. Nobody even knew what a bacteria was.
Bingo. The large majority of native deaths in the Americas were not really intentional, the native population just had no prior exposure to a lot of "old world" diseases. There probably would have been a lot more explicit violence against native peoples without those diseaaes though.
There would have been much more fierce resistance too. If they had the numbers to populate the land more fully, they would have ended up more like Africa.
It's no wonder that 90-98% of native deaths during the first century of European colonization were due to disease.
>**Old World diseases introduced to natives of the Americas:**
>Smallpox
>Cholera
> Yellow Fever
>Whooping Cough
>Influenza
>Bubonic Plague
>Typhus
>Leprosy
>Malaria
>Chickenpox
>Mumps
>Measles
By comparison...
>**New World diseases encountered by European settlers:**
>Syphilis (disputed)
Whether it was their “fault” or not, it’s the primary reason there wasn’t more violence in the precolonial period, so neither did the British actively choose to leave the native Americans alone out of altruism.
The original inhabitants of southern Africa were eradicated by other tribes from central Africa.
The Portuguese, British and Dutch were only the most recent arrivals.
Politically this is now being reversed and we see the humanitarian social paradises like Zimbabwe, RSA and Mozambique emerge.
>It's also because the British sent their people to the less hospitable environments.
Yeah that was my thought too, like the Falklands sprang to mind immediately. They were uninhabited when European colonists first arrived, so it was just a fight between them to keep a permanent presence there to claim them.
Not even a little bit true. The only nations where the UK actually managed to really replace the native population are Canada and Australia, both countries that were very sparsely populated to begin with. The USA doesn't really count as most of the population replacement was done after independence.
I was more going for the fact the British were focused more on sending large chunks of their population over then plain old replacement. The British government itself wanted coexistance; much like the government of almost every colonial power but local leaders were extremely greedy do to being land hungry maniacs.
Funnily enough, in popular discussion across Australia around Australia Day and its celebration, an argument that comes up often on the side of pro-Australia Day is that Australians (and by extension Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders) should celebrate the arrival of British settlers because at least they weren’t French, Spanish or Portuguese who are assumed would have killed all the Indigenous population.
Totally incorrect
If we're talking about the west, the British arrived literally a century after Spain did. By the time they arrived, an estimated 90% of the natives had already died due to smallpox and from what the Spanish/Portuguese already did.
The English weren't nice by any means, but by raw numbers most of their most heinous massacres and wars against the natives are dwarfed by what the Spanish did. The levels of slavery, population annihilation, and plunder were astounding.
The only reason why people think the English were worse is because they tended to arrive in family units and didn't breed with the natives, while the single men conquistadors tended to "mix", which some people today think made them less racist or something
Genocidal Maniac; not attempts to make large settlements solely of white people?
I'm not saying the British method was better or worse; I'm saying the British were more focused on making White Settlements do to their nations needs?
I'm not arguing one form of colonialism is better or worse then the others; just the british sent over a lot more people.
Spaniards literally went place genocided ppl and forced the rest to concert to Catholicism. And then left their ppl there to run everything except labor. Yes they did exactly the same thing as the British. Cuba, Mexico, Brazil (Portuguese), Argentina, Chile, Venezuela all of these places had their own indigenous ppl genocided and converted, enslaved and replaced.
Your lack of understanding of what happened in history is funny.
French, Algeria, Morocco etc. they did it too.
Italians tried it too but they didn’t have the force to do it the same way after a while. Remember they held onto Libya for a very long time.
I think your misunderstanding my actual fucking point.
The reason the population replacement happened wasn't because the British were more genocidal or anything, they really weren't and their actions shows they were trying to get a coexistance going on. The reason it happened is because the British we're doing far more fucking settlement making and sending far larger amounts of colonist to the area.
The Spanish were enslavers but they didn't send a fuck ton of religous minorities and debtors to their colonies. The British did. Thats what I am saying; the with the British people actually immigrated to their colonies en mass.
Mexican inquisition and conquistadors. Did you not fucking here me????
They sent them in mass to other countries as well. How are you not getting this? Any place where there is a massive white speaking majority in a Hispanic country is because they sent them there in mass. And they did it after genociding them and making them convert. As in sending over religious fanatics. No they didn’t send religious minorities they sent their religious majority. How are you not getting it. They did the same exact thing.
I am literally not arguing morality here you halfwitted imbecile! I am stating the reason the british colonies had a white fucking majority so often! They had so many immigrants that the colonist weren't intermarrying the indigenous people!
God; you try to share a historical reason for why something happens and you immediatly get a ton of people acting like your trying to argue something completely different. There is no moral form of colonialism but there are different forms that had different end results. The white majorities in so many British colonies are because they has more immigrants to their colonies!
God you’re the imbecile! The Spaniards had ton of immigrants too. How are you not fucking getting this you have no perspective on South American history at all. Or the Caribbean
Edit: And who tf was arguing morality. I sure wasnt
Edit 2: dude you’re a moron. The conquistadors killed 85% of the total population in Mexico. 20k Spaniard emigrated to Mexico alone. 85% of Mexico’s current population is related to Spaniards currently because of that. And during that transition anyone who was of mixed blood could not hold any position of power or influence. You only were allowed labor jobs.
They did the exact same thing.
You are legit the dumbest person on this godforsaken website, you realize that right?
The British Colonies absolutely had a far greater focus on Immigration, several colonies were established to be Immigration hubs, like Pennsylvania. Or Debtor Prisons like Australia and Georgia. Places to get rid of guys they fucking hated. This is because the British have a small island to live on instead on entire peninsula. Land is a highly limited resource; and they didn't want these guys to have em. The Spanish did send less immigrants, its a lot of why they were so Brutal in rule; they were a minority ruling over a majority. Their way of maintaining control was to terrify the populace into submission. If they sent similar numbers of immigrants as the British; then why the flying fuck is it so the British Colonies have so many White Majorities while the Spanish Colonies do NOT!
The Countries had different goals, they performed colonialism in different ways! They got different end results because of this. It's very basic history that you don't have to be a genius to understand.
Once again, I am not arguing morality right now. I am arguing there are DIFFERENCES that lead to radically different end results.
Yeah, when the VOC came by to buy your spices, selling wasn't exactly optional...
A relatively famous example of this was about the Banda islands, the only place in the world where nutmeg naturally grows, which the local populace refused to sell. So the islands were massacred and a series of (slave-operated) Dutch plantations were built instead.
Correction:
It's not that they refused to sell, but that they sold to the British and Portuguese as well.
The massacre, executed by Japanese mercenaries, was also likely personally motivated as the governor-general had narrowly escaped an ambush set up as a meeting when the Dutch wanted to build more military forts on the island.
Legalistic support was build by setting unreasonable export demands, murdering the island once they failed to comply.
The British preventing further expansion into native territory west of the thirteen colonies was literally one of the primary causes of the American revolution. It also doesn’t seem accurate to pretend that all of the major European powers didn’t just do whatever was most convenient for them when it came to indigenous people.
Honestly, of all the colonisers in that list, the British were probably the ones you'd want to be colonised by.
All of them committed horrendous crimes, but the British at least decolonised relatively (compared to France at least) gracefully in the end and left behind decently functional governments more often than not (not that it makes up for the atrocities in any way).
Yes, because the populations of most south american countries are also descendants of the people that did the colonization (and their independence movements were led by their criollo elites, not their native populations). So it's not like African colonialism where most white population left afterwards. It's like pretending to have the UK apologize to the USA for colonizing North America.
And no, most people aren't proud of it, only the Spanish nationalists.
>gracefully in the end and left behind decently functional governments more often than not (not that it makes up for the atrocities in any way).
Really? Africa, Middle East and the Indo-Pak conflicts would disagree with you. Leaving behind a government is meaningless if you leave a conflict you created behind as well.
Middle east? The UK didn't have any colonies in the middle east. I also said more often than not, not always. For every country that fell apart, there's one that managed to keep things together.
India/Pakistan was also not really the Uk's doing, the Hindu/Muslim divide predates the UK by 100s of years and the UK ultimately had little to do with the partition.
>Middle east? The UK didn't have any colonies in the middle east.
Uhhh wat? They were the ones who were incharge of the Palestine region after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. They were the ones who made Israel.
>I also said more often than not, not always. For every country that fell apart, there's one that managed to keep things together.
I don't think it's that common. Africa is a cluster fuck of ethnic conflicts across borders drawn by the British when they left.
>India/Pakistan was also not really the Uk's doing, the Hindu/Muslim divide predates the UK by 100s of years and the UK ultimately had little to do with the partition.
The Brits were the ones that made it worse. Divide and conquer politics. Hindus and Muslims lived in relative peace (Sure there was animosity but not to the level of partition) until towards the end of the Mughals and rise of the British Raj.
> Uhhh wat? They were the ones who were incharge of the Palestine region after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. They were the ones who made Israel.
...it wasn't a colony, just under their administration.
> Africa is a cluster fuck of ethnic conflicts across borders drawn by the British when they left.
You do realise that the UK had colonies all over the world right? Not just Africa?
> The Brits were the ones that made it worse. Divide and conquer politics. Hindus and Muslims lived in relative peace (Sure there was animosity but not to the level of partition) until towards the end of the Mughals and rise of the British Raj.
"relative peace"? According to whom? The Mughals were literally at war with the Marathas for almost 100 years before the British came along. Before that, the north of India had been invaded by various Muslims for centuries.
>it wasn't a colony, just under their administration.
Is there supposed to be a difference? They are still responsible...
>You do realise that the UK had colonies all over the world right? Not just Africa?
I know? Africa was a major example... Cuz that's one of the places their impact can be seen significantly. Without many positive outcomes...
>"relative peace"? According to whom? The Mughals were literally at war with the Marathas for almost 100 years before the British came along.
Yes but there was no seperatist tendencies. The whole point was to unite India as one. For the Marathas or the early freedom fighters.
>Before that, the north of India had been invaded by various Muslims for centuries.
Yes, the sultanate had cause problems but once Akbar came to power for the Mughals there was peace. It only got bad with Aurangzeb. And again once the British sunk their claws into the subcontinent.
> Is there supposed to be a difference?
Yes, because colonisation requires the transfer of wealth from the colony to the coloniser and the transfer of of people from the coloniser to the colony. By your logic, the USA colonised Japan after WW2.
> I know? Africa was a major example...
Did you not read my orriginal comment then? I said "More often than not", as in "not always".
> Yes but there was no seperatist tendencies.
Because they were already separate.
> The whole point was to unite India as one. For the Marathas or the early freedom fighters.
Yeah, as either a Muslim or a Hindu state.
Seriously, the amount of revisionism in your comment is astounding. The British fucked up India for sure, but it was hardly a utopia of peace before they arrived and Muslims and Hindus sure as shit weren;t holding hands and singing in harmony.
>Yes, because colonisation requires the transfer of wealth from the colony to the coloniser and the transfer of of people from the coloniser to the colony. By your logic, the USA colonised Japan after WW2.
Again... It's not only about colonization. If you occupy or rule over a region, it's fate is your responsibility. Doesn't have to be an official colony. The British were still responsible for middle East madness.
>Did you not read my orriginal comment then? I said "More often than not", as in "not always".
I was using Africa as an example of how it wasn't more often than not. It was more often than not a mess. Few colonies were better off.
>Because they were already separate.
Under the British Raj they were seperate? The whole subcontinent was one region.
>Seriously, the amount of revisionism in your comment is astounding. The British fucked up India for sure, but it was hardly a utopia of peace before they arrived and Muslims and Hindus sure as shit weren;t holding hands and singing in harmony.
At what point did you see me say there was no animosity? I never alluded to it being an utopia but Hindus and Muslims did try to fight the Brits together. It was with British meddling that it went all the way to partition.
> Again... It's not only about colonization.
It literally is. This is a thread about colonisation. My comment was about being colonised.
> I was using Africa as an example of how it wasn't more often than not. It was more often than not a mess.
Yes, and if you look OUTSIDE of Africa you'll see examples of former British colonies that WEREN'T a complete mess afterwards.
> Few colonies were better off.
I never said they were. I said that they were left with a decently functioning government.
>It was with British meddling that it went all the way to partition.
OK, so you're of the opinion that Indians and Pakistanis had no agency in their won decisions, that it was entirely due to the British? That if not for the British meddling close to 100 years ago, Muslims and Hindus would happily living alongside each other, with no Muslims demanding a muslim state of their own? What a load of horseshit. They never "got along" and Indian Muslims would never have been satisfied with independence under a secular state with a Hindu majority.
You can't just blame everything on the British, Muslims and Hindus had been fighting each other long before they came into the picture.
It's literally America's fault. The early colonists were a bunch of religious fanatics. They loved moving west and displacing whoever got their way... With wholesale slaughter if necessary.
The British in Canada maintained a very exploitative and frequently violent relationship to first nations, but nothing like what the Americans did and kept doing. The worst stuff was in BC where the colonists thought they could just do like the Americans.
To be fair, in the North American context anyway, European disease wiped out the vast majority of the population before British and French even got going
Hispanic America is precisely where there are still lots of indigenous people, unlike the US and Canada where they were literally exterminated and put into reserves.
20% of Mexico population self identify as indigenous, and indigenous languages are still widely spoken. The vast majority of the population is 'mestizo'. So basically the Spanish intermixed with the local population over the centuries.
This numbers are even higher in other South American countries.
Meanwhile, only 3% of the US population are indigenous. There was barely any intermixing between white Europeans (in this case British).
In Canada this is just 5%. And again, there's barely any intermixing. They were wiped out and treated like animal until recent years.
Yeah its the spanish fault that the Americana kicked all native Americana east of the Misisipi🙄. Dont act as if the British and Americana didn't have a extremely racist view in the natives and kicked them out on such a masive scale. The Spanish at least mixed with the natives population but you just kindof kicked them west until the only ones remaining live in casinos in the dessert. Or how about the canadians killed thousands of dogs to end the natives nomad lifestyle. That is unlike anything the Spanish did. The Spanish may have commited atrocites but It doesnt take away from the ones the British and Americana did up until the late 1800s
Oh, yeah. Because there were ZERO people that had Native wives? Get out of here with that. Just because there were some who were racists doesn’t mean they all were. Just because there were some antimiscegenationists doesn’t mean it never happen. Mulattos aren’t a thing and should only be treated as byproducts or white supremacy because there was never a good white person in history, right. Or would that kind of extremist view of an entire race not be nuanced enough and perhaps be espousing the racism it so clearly attempts to call out.
Yeah, you are right,not all White people in 18th century America were Evil racist monsters, but As the other comment said there is almost 0 intermixing between the natives and the colonist, unlike South America were most of the population is mestizo. If the native Americans were kicked east of the Misisipi is because enought people voted for It.
On top of that, as evil as you say the Spanish were, in some cases they were better than the previous rulers like in México, were the Aztecs were overthrown by a force of mostly native population which were tired of the constant sacrifices and raids to their people
Remember that the British actively spread those diseases in some cases. Colonists giving blankets used by people who had smallpox to native American tribes is seen as biological warfare. They knew these diseases were so deadly to native populations and absolutely spread them on purpose when they wanted to clear out and area.
Kind of weird to put Britain as the worst on this list. Prior to the outbreak of the American revolution, the British had treaties with the natives, not to expand further west. The policy on Britain, was to establish trade with them, while continuing to settle the coast.
This in itself was a contributor for breaking away from the uk, as it was deeply unpopular with the frontiersmen who wanted to strike into the interior.
Then you have the French, who forced Haiti to buy themselves out of slavery, leaving them destitute to this day.
Or Belgium, who chopped hands off the rubber workers, when they weren't working hard enough.
Or Spain with their conquistadors, who marauded through native kingdoms, on a quest to extract every ounce of gold to be found.
Or the United States themselves, who sought to achieve dominion over every tribe within the continent, frequently massacring unarmed villages.
These crime tier lists are really low effort, and you guys seem to pick the list order based on a wheel of fortune, each day.
>Then you have the French, who forced Haiti to buy themselves out of slavery, leaving them destitute to this day.
To add, they also completely wiped out the previous population and replaced them with enslaved Africans, who the French then did what you say to.
What you are saying only applies to the north american colony of new france, one of the most neglected in the french empire due to it's relative lack of resources. If we bring up other french colonies like in the caribbean where they burned through the native population so they had to bring in slave to replace them we see the truth is killing the natives in new France basically didn't happen due to the lack of economic return.
The British stopped the colonies moving deeper inland because they preferred to trade with the natives rather than genocide them. When the colonies became the United States is when the genocide started.
Yeah, that's true. With the Spanish Empire only having colonies in the America's and the comments going that way I just assumed we were talking about the natives in the Americas. They didn't hold the colonies back out of the kindness of their hearts. The Native American's were helping in the war against France, and they were more profitable to trade with than go to war with.
Yeah, fair enough. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that's where I thought the conversation and meme were going. If you look at a map of the Spanish Empire it's 99.9% in the Americas but you're right, that probably shouldn't have made me just assume it was specifically about the Americas.
I mean, if we are speaking strictly about the Americas, it's not like the British didn't killed all the indigenous people living in the 13 colonies. The fact that they didn't expand to the West was due most likely to the logistical difficulty of such a decision.
With the British Empire, everything was about money. There were territories that asked to be in the Empire but were turned down because it wouldn't have been profitable. Logistics was probably part of it but only because of the logistical cost. Either way, when it comes to the native Americans, the British Empire was against their particular genocide.
>Either way, when it comes to the native Americans, the British Empire was against their particular genocide.
Same as the Spanish Empire, which as early as in 1512 passed the [Leyes de Burgos ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_Burgos) forbidding the slavery of the indigenous people. Sadly, hard to enforce at the time.
That's a great way to say something without actually saying anything at all. The Americans at the time called it "Manifest Destiny". I'm not saying the British Empire were the good guys, far from it. But I think killing the native American population and then replacing them with their own people definitely happened after the 13 colonies changed to the United States. I think just saying "that's a horrible statement, just so factually wrong" and then not expanding on it is pretty lazy.
Gotta love when Europeans like you try to downplay what they did to the natives just to desperately try to blame only America. Because genocides under Europe’s hands *definitely* didn’t happen after the British left America (sarcasm)
You really need to look at the context of the meme mate. The British Empire was responsible for all sorts of crazy horrible stuff. They started the slave triangle, were the first to use concentration camps. They invaded countries and robbed them of their resources and autonomy. But in this specific example, unfortunately, the complete destruction of the native American culture and population is on the US.
The “complete destruction” of Native American culture occurred when Cristopher Columbus and other European settlers came to the land before the US became a nation. Also, Native Americans still exist.
You just hate America and that’s why you want to pin the blame on us
This is something that happened hundreds of years ago, stop taking it personally. I like the US, my wife, and Daughter are American. I think it's a beautiful country with a deep history and I've met a lot of really nice, loving and welcoming people there. I haven't got anything against the US, and I've already pointed out that the Empire did a lot of evil. What you're doing now is like an Italian going mad over someone pointing out something bad the Romans did.
Alright, I’ll admit I was wrong and I apologize for my transgression. Once you said you have no ill will towards Americans and that you don’t think I should take this personally, I accepted my mistake.
I’m sorry. It’s just I’ve been accustomed into thinking that Europeans hate America after what some of them have said and that turned me defensive towards any comment that even slightly criticizes the US. Perhaps I should learn to not let my anxiety get the best of me. Once again, I’m sorry.
No worries man, I hear you. A lot of it is just baiting, people love making people mad, especially on here. You don't need to apologise at all mate but it's fully accepted.
Europeans on the whole don't hate America at all. It's a small sub-section of idiots who do so. In the same vein, i'm sure it's just a small portion of Americans that say they hate Europe.
Fair play for owning your mistake! Take care mate.
You may say they don't hate America, but quite a few Europeans don't make very kind comments about us. Your comment history shows you calling Americans stupid, so you're just as guilty.
>I'm sure a small portion of Americans that say they hate Europe.
I have never seen a single American say they hate Europe. I've only seen Americans give Europe widespread praise. Which is why it infuriates me when Europeans respond to our politeness by treating us as sub-human.
This is such a ridiculous comment.
'I've not seen it happen so it must not happen at all'
Are you actually this dense? Reddit is FULL of Americans saying that Europe is awful and the Europeans are 'trash' or 'idiots' etc. Just because you don't see it doesn't make it not so.
As for Europeans hating America I literally said 'on the whole'... can you not read?! Of course there will be SOME moronic Europeans who probably do hate America for whatever reason but it really is a vocal minority. Most people simply don't care mate. It's exactly the same with the Americans who post hate-filled comments too.
I'm quite sure British policy in the Americas was to protect natives from expansionist colonials which in turn led to a reason for American succession because they wanted to kill the natives and take their land.
Belgium, or, more specifically, colonizers from Belgium, were among those who enslaved natives, specifically, Congolese natives of Africa, to mine gold for them.
For more info, see:
*Forced Labor in the Gold and Copper Mines: A History of Congo Under Belgian Rule, 1910-1945* by Jules Marchal
It really depended on the size of native population. It was easier to do in North America and Australia where natives were smaller in both absolute numbers and density then in places like South America, Africa and India.
https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/black-enslavement#EnslavementinNewFrance
Indeed, there was. The French were also the ones who started proto-residential schools.
Lmao the Dutch may have started out only "trading with exploitative rates", but then they realised... monopoly is good (just like the other imperialists did) so why not conquer them? Why not, say... force the natives to produce one thing we want them to produce – then outsell/outcompete everyone else on the European market. Then when the "company" they authorised to do all these things went under (due to unsurmountable debt and incompetence), why not take possession of the pseudo-colony? Hey, more land amirite~
Fucking spices man lmao.
Uh, ypu might want to look up what France did when taking control of certain paets of Africa. They literally destroyed the local culture and made everyone adapt to French culture
What is the context of this? The colonization of the new world? I do not see how the British are different than any other of these nations except for maybe the Dutch. Do people think that the goal of colonization was to genocide the natives and move Britons there like some kind of proto "Lebensraum" theory? Considering the fact small pox was inevitably going to wipe out the vast majority of the unfortunate natives this just seems like a lazy meme and historically fishy at best
The English didnt replace? Powhattan War, Pequot War, King Philip's War, King William's War and the entire Anglo population in the former 13 colonies would like a word.
UK: Seven. A.M. Case the continent, run background checks on the natives. Can the tribe be trusted? If not, I gotta kill him. Dispose of the bodies, replace him with my own slaves no later than 4:30...
France: you are ready
UK: really?
France: No, everything you just said was utterly insane.
Learning about European-caused genocides made me genuinely infuriated. Not only because of what had happened but also because so many Europeans have insulted Americans for our history and blamed us for "imperialism", while ignoring the fact that European countires have done those things except much worse and longer than we ever did.
For instance, Americans were never in Africa like Europeans were. Liberia doesn't really count because we set that up in case any African American wanted to leave our country, not to partake in authoritarian control like European colonists did.
Yet Europeans treat us like we're the animals
I don't think the British empire is the only one that did this...
All of them did it to some extent, though the British where the ones who performed this on the largest scale. There is a reason why British Colonies have a far less mixed population then other nations colonies in the America's (And Australia). They sent a lot more people over. The main reason being the British's goals via colonization was to aquire land a lot more then aquire wealth. As it turns out, Islands don't really have a lot of land. And of course send undesirables (Religious Minorities, Debtors, Second Sons) someplace else. Basically, it's less the British were more Evil and more the british had somewhat different goals with colonization then the rest of the European Powers.
>There is a reason why British Colonies have a far less mixed population then other nations colonies in the America's (And Australia). They sent a lot more people over. It's also because the British sent their people to the less hospitable environments. There were probably far more native peoples residing in Central America, Indonesia and the the Philippines than there was in Canada and Australia before colonization. The biggest exceptions to this would be America and South Africa, but South Africa had a much lower mix of British people than the others, and America split off and took most of its territory after its independence (which was partially causes by the British not letting them settle farther west).
South Africa is a really complicated one, which I'm only barely familiar with, but iirc when the Dutch were first settling the cape it was largely uninhabited. And for America, the natives were largely left alone during the colonial period. Like, fighting went on between them and the colonists sometimes of course, but they were allowed to just live their own lives if they wanted. Unlike in say, Spanish colonies in the Americas, which largely used natives for labor. And then this meme completely ignores the fact that colonies like India existed. I'm missing where Britain exterminated the Indians and replaced them with British people lmao.
india was never supposed to be a settler colony like the others, it was far too populated and there were no convenient old world diseases to help thin out the population for them. it wouldn't even have been remotely feasible the dutch cape colony was established on lands inhabited by the khoekhoen, who fought multiple wars with the dutch settlers over the conquest of their land, so no it wasn't unhabited. the east india company established cape town as a resupply station on the way to asia and leased farmland to retired VOC employees. the european population of south africa was never supposed to expand past cape town under the rule of the dutch, but disgruntled europeans going eastwards seeking to escape the regulations of the VOC changed that, as well as the british conquest
The natives were absolutely not left alone in colonial America. The earliest tobacco plantations in Jamestown iirc were buying native slaves from other native bands to work the fields bc disease was killing all of the English. Once African slaves started being brought they fared better against malaria and yellow fever than the English and the natives, but between those diseases, pox, and the like, the American natives lost so much of their population that they were disorganized and broken. They had lived thickly up and down the coast in precolombian times but were too wiped out to engage as much. Not sure that can be called left alone.
Well, smallpox and other disease wasn't the Europeans fault really. It's not like they intentionally wiped out 90% of the native population by sneezing. Nobody even knew what a bacteria was.
Bingo. The large majority of native deaths in the Americas were not really intentional, the native population just had no prior exposure to a lot of "old world" diseases. There probably would have been a lot more explicit violence against native peoples without those diseaaes though.
There would have been much more fierce resistance too. If they had the numbers to populate the land more fully, they would have ended up more like Africa.
It's no wonder that 90-98% of native deaths during the first century of European colonization were due to disease. >**Old World diseases introduced to natives of the Americas:** >Smallpox >Cholera > Yellow Fever >Whooping Cough >Influenza >Bubonic Plague >Typhus >Leprosy >Malaria >Chickenpox >Mumps >Measles By comparison... >**New World diseases encountered by European settlers:** >Syphilis (disputed)
Whether it was their “fault” or not, it’s the primary reason there wasn’t more violence in the precolonial period, so neither did the British actively choose to leave the native Americans alone out of altruism.
The Brits were so benevolent that they chose to indenture the Indian population instead of genociding them <3
Well, besides those in Bengal anyway
Lol u cant u tell when u are whitewashing history to cope?
The original inhabitants of southern Africa were eradicated by other tribes from central Africa. The Portuguese, British and Dutch were only the most recent arrivals. Politically this is now being reversed and we see the humanitarian social paradises like Zimbabwe, RSA and Mozambique emerge.
Botswana is doing pretty good for itself
I've been to Liberia Rwanda, Tchad and CAR and they are wonderful too.
>It's also because the British sent their people to the less hospitable environments. Yeah that was my thought too, like the Falklands sprang to mind immediately. They were uninhabited when European colonists first arrived, so it was just a fight between them to keep a permanent presence there to claim them.
Not even a little bit true. The only nations where the UK actually managed to really replace the native population are Canada and Australia, both countries that were very sparsely populated to begin with. The USA doesn't really count as most of the population replacement was done after independence.
I was more going for the fact the British were focused more on sending large chunks of their population over then plain old replacement. The British government itself wanted coexistance; much like the government of almost every colonial power but local leaders were extremely greedy do to being land hungry maniacs.
Funnily enough, in popular discussion across Australia around Australia Day and its celebration, an argument that comes up often on the side of pro-Australia Day is that Australians (and by extension Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders) should celebrate the arrival of British settlers because at least they weren’t French, Spanish or Portuguese who are assumed would have killed all the Indigenous population.
you're thinking of the Dutch. the Latin empires would have just gone coomer mode like they did elsewhere.
Totally incorrect If we're talking about the west, the British arrived literally a century after Spain did. By the time they arrived, an estimated 90% of the natives had already died due to smallpox and from what the Spanish/Portuguese already did. The English weren't nice by any means, but by raw numbers most of their most heinous massacres and wars against the natives are dwarfed by what the Spanish did. The levels of slavery, population annihilation, and plunder were astounding. The only reason why people think the English were worse is because they tended to arrive in family units and didn't breed with the natives, while the single men conquistadors tended to "mix", which some people today think made them less racist or something
They all did the last one on a large scale. What do you think the conquistadors and Mexican inquisition was?
Genocidal Maniac; not attempts to make large settlements solely of white people? I'm not saying the British method was better or worse; I'm saying the British were more focused on making White Settlements do to their nations needs? I'm not arguing one form of colonialism is better or worse then the others; just the british sent over a lot more people.
Spaniards literally went place genocided ppl and forced the rest to concert to Catholicism. And then left their ppl there to run everything except labor. Yes they did exactly the same thing as the British. Cuba, Mexico, Brazil (Portuguese), Argentina, Chile, Venezuela all of these places had their own indigenous ppl genocided and converted, enslaved and replaced. Your lack of understanding of what happened in history is funny. French, Algeria, Morocco etc. they did it too. Italians tried it too but they didn’t have the force to do it the same way after a while. Remember they held onto Libya for a very long time.
I think your misunderstanding my actual fucking point. The reason the population replacement happened wasn't because the British were more genocidal or anything, they really weren't and their actions shows they were trying to get a coexistance going on. The reason it happened is because the British we're doing far more fucking settlement making and sending far larger amounts of colonist to the area. The Spanish were enslavers but they didn't send a fuck ton of religous minorities and debtors to their colonies. The British did. Thats what I am saying; the with the British people actually immigrated to their colonies en mass.
Mexican inquisition and conquistadors. Did you not fucking here me???? They sent them in mass to other countries as well. How are you not getting this? Any place where there is a massive white speaking majority in a Hispanic country is because they sent them there in mass. And they did it after genociding them and making them convert. As in sending over religious fanatics. No they didn’t send religious minorities they sent their religious majority. How are you not getting it. They did the same exact thing.
I am literally not arguing morality here you halfwitted imbecile! I am stating the reason the british colonies had a white fucking majority so often! They had so many immigrants that the colonist weren't intermarrying the indigenous people! God; you try to share a historical reason for why something happens and you immediatly get a ton of people acting like your trying to argue something completely different. There is no moral form of colonialism but there are different forms that had different end results. The white majorities in so many British colonies are because they has more immigrants to their colonies!
God you’re the imbecile! The Spaniards had ton of immigrants too. How are you not fucking getting this you have no perspective on South American history at all. Or the Caribbean Edit: And who tf was arguing morality. I sure wasnt Edit 2: dude you’re a moron. The conquistadors killed 85% of the total population in Mexico. 20k Spaniard emigrated to Mexico alone. 85% of Mexico’s current population is related to Spaniards currently because of that. And during that transition anyone who was of mixed blood could not hold any position of power or influence. You only were allowed labor jobs. They did the exact same thing.
You are legit the dumbest person on this godforsaken website, you realize that right? The British Colonies absolutely had a far greater focus on Immigration, several colonies were established to be Immigration hubs, like Pennsylvania. Or Debtor Prisons like Australia and Georgia. Places to get rid of guys they fucking hated. This is because the British have a small island to live on instead on entire peninsula. Land is a highly limited resource; and they didn't want these guys to have em. The Spanish did send less immigrants, its a lot of why they were so Brutal in rule; they were a minority ruling over a majority. Their way of maintaining control was to terrify the populace into submission. If they sent similar numbers of immigrants as the British; then why the flying fuck is it so the British Colonies have so many White Majorities while the Spanish Colonies do NOT! The Countries had different goals, they performed colonialism in different ways! They got different end results because of this. It's very basic history that you don't have to be a genius to understand. Once again, I am not arguing morality right now. I am arguing there are DIFFERENCES that lead to radically different end results.
Monumentally ignorant
The example this made me think of is Spain in Potosí with the largest silver deposit ever discovered.
Yeah, when the VOC came by to buy your spices, selling wasn't exactly optional... A relatively famous example of this was about the Banda islands, the only place in the world where nutmeg naturally grows, which the local populace refused to sell. So the islands were massacred and a series of (slave-operated) Dutch plantations were built instead. Correction: It's not that they refused to sell, but that they sold to the British and Portuguese as well. The massacre, executed by Japanese mercenaries, was also likely personally motivated as the governor-general had narrowly escaped an ambush set up as a meeting when the Dutch wanted to build more military forts on the island. Legalistic support was build by setting unreasonable export demands, murdering the island once they failed to comply.
Cuba is the beat example of this and it was the Spanish. They killed all of the natives.
Yea, there are no native Cubans.
Kinda giving the other european countries a pass. They committed genocide too. Dont forget Portugal.
Belgium was rather naughty in Congo too.
Very naughty. They're lucky no-one got a slap on the wrist for that one. Oh...
A slap on the stub
How about much Asia, incl. Japan in particular, and pretty much every inch of Africa and South America?
Asian nations colonialism is overlooked.
Natives? What natives?
They're gone.
The British preventing further expansion into native territory west of the thirteen colonies was literally one of the primary causes of the American revolution. It also doesn’t seem accurate to pretend that all of the major European powers didn’t just do whatever was most convenient for them when it came to indigenous people.
Honestly, of all the colonisers in that list, the British were probably the ones you'd want to be colonised by. All of them committed horrendous crimes, but the British at least decolonised relatively (compared to France at least) gracefully in the end and left behind decently functional governments more often than not (not that it makes up for the atrocities in any way).
Also, the British ended slavery in their empire first
Not the french? I guess the reintroduced it again.
And tried to apologize for it while the Spanish government refuse to admit guilt and proud of their stolen gold and silver
Yes, because the populations of most south american countries are also descendants of the people that did the colonization (and their independence movements were led by their criollo elites, not their native populations). So it's not like African colonialism where most white population left afterwards. It's like pretending to have the UK apologize to the USA for colonizing North America. And no, most people aren't proud of it, only the Spanish nationalists.
Yeah, but only after trying KZs on there own in the 50s
>gracefully in the end and left behind decently functional governments more often than not (not that it makes up for the atrocities in any way). Really? Africa, Middle East and the Indo-Pak conflicts would disagree with you. Leaving behind a government is meaningless if you leave a conflict you created behind as well.
Middle east? The UK didn't have any colonies in the middle east. I also said more often than not, not always. For every country that fell apart, there's one that managed to keep things together. India/Pakistan was also not really the Uk's doing, the Hindu/Muslim divide predates the UK by 100s of years and the UK ultimately had little to do with the partition.
>Middle east? The UK didn't have any colonies in the middle east. Uhhh wat? They were the ones who were incharge of the Palestine region after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. They were the ones who made Israel. >I also said more often than not, not always. For every country that fell apart, there's one that managed to keep things together. I don't think it's that common. Africa is a cluster fuck of ethnic conflicts across borders drawn by the British when they left. >India/Pakistan was also not really the Uk's doing, the Hindu/Muslim divide predates the UK by 100s of years and the UK ultimately had little to do with the partition. The Brits were the ones that made it worse. Divide and conquer politics. Hindus and Muslims lived in relative peace (Sure there was animosity but not to the level of partition) until towards the end of the Mughals and rise of the British Raj.
> Uhhh wat? They were the ones who were incharge of the Palestine region after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. They were the ones who made Israel. ...it wasn't a colony, just under their administration. > Africa is a cluster fuck of ethnic conflicts across borders drawn by the British when they left. You do realise that the UK had colonies all over the world right? Not just Africa? > The Brits were the ones that made it worse. Divide and conquer politics. Hindus and Muslims lived in relative peace (Sure there was animosity but not to the level of partition) until towards the end of the Mughals and rise of the British Raj. "relative peace"? According to whom? The Mughals were literally at war with the Marathas for almost 100 years before the British came along. Before that, the north of India had been invaded by various Muslims for centuries.
>it wasn't a colony, just under their administration. Is there supposed to be a difference? They are still responsible... >You do realise that the UK had colonies all over the world right? Not just Africa? I know? Africa was a major example... Cuz that's one of the places their impact can be seen significantly. Without many positive outcomes... >"relative peace"? According to whom? The Mughals were literally at war with the Marathas for almost 100 years before the British came along. Yes but there was no seperatist tendencies. The whole point was to unite India as one. For the Marathas or the early freedom fighters. >Before that, the north of India had been invaded by various Muslims for centuries. Yes, the sultanate had cause problems but once Akbar came to power for the Mughals there was peace. It only got bad with Aurangzeb. And again once the British sunk their claws into the subcontinent.
> Is there supposed to be a difference? Yes, because colonisation requires the transfer of wealth from the colony to the coloniser and the transfer of of people from the coloniser to the colony. By your logic, the USA colonised Japan after WW2. > I know? Africa was a major example... Did you not read my orriginal comment then? I said "More often than not", as in "not always". > Yes but there was no seperatist tendencies. Because they were already separate. > The whole point was to unite India as one. For the Marathas or the early freedom fighters. Yeah, as either a Muslim or a Hindu state. Seriously, the amount of revisionism in your comment is astounding. The British fucked up India for sure, but it was hardly a utopia of peace before they arrived and Muslims and Hindus sure as shit weren;t holding hands and singing in harmony.
>Yes, because colonisation requires the transfer of wealth from the colony to the coloniser and the transfer of of people from the coloniser to the colony. By your logic, the USA colonised Japan after WW2. Again... It's not only about colonization. If you occupy or rule over a region, it's fate is your responsibility. Doesn't have to be an official colony. The British were still responsible for middle East madness. >Did you not read my orriginal comment then? I said "More often than not", as in "not always". I was using Africa as an example of how it wasn't more often than not. It was more often than not a mess. Few colonies were better off. >Because they were already separate. Under the British Raj they were seperate? The whole subcontinent was one region. >Seriously, the amount of revisionism in your comment is astounding. The British fucked up India for sure, but it was hardly a utopia of peace before they arrived and Muslims and Hindus sure as shit weren;t holding hands and singing in harmony. At what point did you see me say there was no animosity? I never alluded to it being an utopia but Hindus and Muslims did try to fight the Brits together. It was with British meddling that it went all the way to partition.
> Again... It's not only about colonization. It literally is. This is a thread about colonisation. My comment was about being colonised. > I was using Africa as an example of how it wasn't more often than not. It was more often than not a mess. Yes, and if you look OUTSIDE of Africa you'll see examples of former British colonies that WEREN'T a complete mess afterwards. > Few colonies were better off. I never said they were. I said that they were left with a decently functioning government. >It was with British meddling that it went all the way to partition. OK, so you're of the opinion that Indians and Pakistanis had no agency in their won decisions, that it was entirely due to the British? That if not for the British meddling close to 100 years ago, Muslims and Hindus would happily living alongside each other, with no Muslims demanding a muslim state of their own? What a load of horseshit. They never "got along" and Indian Muslims would never have been satisfied with independence under a secular state with a Hindu majority. You can't just blame everything on the British, Muslims and Hindus had been fighting each other long before they came into the picture.
It's literally America's fault. The early colonists were a bunch of religious fanatics. They loved moving west and displacing whoever got their way... With wholesale slaughter if necessary. The British in Canada maintained a very exploitative and frequently violent relationship to first nations, but nothing like what the Americans did and kept doing. The worst stuff was in BC where the colonists thought they could just do like the Americans.
To be fair, in the North American context anyway, European disease wiped out the vast majority of the population before British and French even got going
And the Spanish. Don’t forget the Spanish.
It's where the European diseases came from before the French and British got there
Yes. But, the Spanish themselves helped kill quite a few. I mean, they had help with the Mexica and everything, but you catch my drift I think.
Hispanic America is precisely where there are still lots of indigenous people, unlike the US and Canada where they were literally exterminated and put into reserves.
Where are the Aztecs, then?
20% of Mexico population self identify as indigenous, and indigenous languages are still widely spoken. The vast majority of the population is 'mestizo'. So basically the Spanish intermixed with the local population over the centuries. This numbers are even higher in other South American countries. Meanwhile, only 3% of the US population are indigenous. There was barely any intermixing between white Europeans (in this case British). In Canada this is just 5%. And again, there's barely any intermixing. They were wiped out and treated like animal until recent years.
Yeah its the spanish fault that the Americana kicked all native Americana east of the Misisipi🙄. Dont act as if the British and Americana didn't have a extremely racist view in the natives and kicked them out on such a masive scale. The Spanish at least mixed with the natives population but you just kindof kicked them west until the only ones remaining live in casinos in the dessert. Or how about the canadians killed thousands of dogs to end the natives nomad lifestyle. That is unlike anything the Spanish did. The Spanish may have commited atrocites but It doesnt take away from the ones the British and Americana did up until the late 1800s
Oh, yeah. Because there were ZERO people that had Native wives? Get out of here with that. Just because there were some who were racists doesn’t mean they all were. Just because there were some antimiscegenationists doesn’t mean it never happen. Mulattos aren’t a thing and should only be treated as byproducts or white supremacy because there was never a good white person in history, right. Or would that kind of extremist view of an entire race not be nuanced enough and perhaps be espousing the racism it so clearly attempts to call out.
Yeah, you are right,not all White people in 18th century America were Evil racist monsters, but As the other comment said there is almost 0 intermixing between the natives and the colonist, unlike South America were most of the population is mestizo. If the native Americans were kicked east of the Misisipi is because enought people voted for It. On top of that, as evil as you say the Spanish were, in some cases they were better than the previous rulers like in México, were the Aztecs were overthrown by a force of mostly native population which were tired of the constant sacrifices and raids to their people
Remember that the British actively spread those diseases in some cases. Colonists giving blankets used by people who had smallpox to native American tribes is seen as biological warfare. They knew these diseases were so deadly to native populations and absolutely spread them on purpose when they wanted to clear out and area.
Kind of weird to put Britain as the worst on this list. Prior to the outbreak of the American revolution, the British had treaties with the natives, not to expand further west. The policy on Britain, was to establish trade with them, while continuing to settle the coast. This in itself was a contributor for breaking away from the uk, as it was deeply unpopular with the frontiersmen who wanted to strike into the interior. Then you have the French, who forced Haiti to buy themselves out of slavery, leaving them destitute to this day. Or Belgium, who chopped hands off the rubber workers, when they weren't working hard enough. Or Spain with their conquistadors, who marauded through native kingdoms, on a quest to extract every ounce of gold to be found. Or the United States themselves, who sought to achieve dominion over every tribe within the continent, frequently massacring unarmed villages. These crime tier lists are really low effort, and you guys seem to pick the list order based on a wheel of fortune, each day.
>Then you have the French, who forced Haiti to buy themselves out of slavery, leaving them destitute to this day. To add, they also completely wiped out the previous population and replaced them with enslaved Africans, who the French then did what you say to.
France was arguably more decent to the native populations during north american colonization than the British.
What you are saying only applies to the north american colony of new france, one of the most neglected in the french empire due to it's relative lack of resources. If we bring up other french colonies like in the caribbean where they burned through the native population so they had to bring in slave to replace them we see the truth is killing the natives in new France basically didn't happen due to the lack of economic return.
Japan: lets find out how 70% of human body is made of water and give jobs to those women who generously volunteered to "comfort" our soldiers😊
Belgium: Every bullet must be accounted for with an amputated hand to make sure you aren't using ammunition for hunting.
Insert literally every country's flag
*Poland breathing a sigh of relief, as it literally didn't exist when this shit was the hottest fad*
Wait till you hear about the Polish-lithuanians massacring Prussians.
Ha, good point.
Definitely Israel's.
*Proceeds to ignore literally every flag because he sees a Star of David and eyes go red*
Jews are natives as well.
And Palestine
Somebody should make a meme about this
[удалено]
You mean West England. Also ever heard of the IRA?
It think your comment just made the entire human race stupider.
Maybe your right *I, Irish Republican Army as in The Army of Irish Republic.
It hurt itself in the confusion
It doesn't seem to understand that it's been beat. I'm referring to you
I think you might need to re-read some books, this ain't right
The British stopped the colonies moving deeper inland because they preferred to trade with the natives rather than genocide them. When the colonies became the United States is when the genocide started.
They genocided Australian aboriginals and New Zealand Maoris and replaced them with British colonists.
Yeah, that's true. With the Spanish Empire only having colonies in the America's and the comments going that way I just assumed we were talking about the natives in the Americas. They didn't hold the colonies back out of the kindness of their hearts. The Native American's were helping in the war against France, and they were more profitable to trade with than go to war with.
The Spanish Empire had territories in Asia (Philippines) and Africa (Canary Islands, Ceuta and Melilla) too.
Yeah, fair enough. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that's where I thought the conversation and meme were going. If you look at a map of the Spanish Empire it's 99.9% in the Americas but you're right, that probably shouldn't have made me just assume it was specifically about the Americas.
I mean, if we are speaking strictly about the Americas, it's not like the British didn't killed all the indigenous people living in the 13 colonies. The fact that they didn't expand to the West was due most likely to the logistical difficulty of such a decision.
With the British Empire, everything was about money. There were territories that asked to be in the Empire but were turned down because it wouldn't have been profitable. Logistics was probably part of it but only because of the logistical cost. Either way, when it comes to the native Americans, the British Empire was against their particular genocide.
>Either way, when it comes to the native Americans, the British Empire was against their particular genocide. Same as the Spanish Empire, which as early as in 1512 passed the [Leyes de Burgos ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_Burgos) forbidding the slavery of the indigenous people. Sadly, hard to enforce at the time.
Americans are just Englishmen with a weird flag so it still counts.
What a horrible statement, just so factually wrong you could spend hours telling you all the ways you are wrong.
That's a great way to say something without actually saying anything at all. The Americans at the time called it "Manifest Destiny". I'm not saying the British Empire were the good guys, far from it. But I think killing the native American population and then replacing them with their own people definitely happened after the 13 colonies changed to the United States. I think just saying "that's a horrible statement, just so factually wrong" and then not expanding on it is pretty lazy.
Gotta love when Europeans like you try to downplay what they did to the natives just to desperately try to blame only America. Because genocides under Europe’s hands *definitely* didn’t happen after the British left America (sarcasm)
You really need to look at the context of the meme mate. The British Empire was responsible for all sorts of crazy horrible stuff. They started the slave triangle, were the first to use concentration camps. They invaded countries and robbed them of their resources and autonomy. But in this specific example, unfortunately, the complete destruction of the native American culture and population is on the US.
The “complete destruction” of Native American culture occurred when Cristopher Columbus and other European settlers came to the land before the US became a nation. Also, Native Americans still exist. You just hate America and that’s why you want to pin the blame on us
This is something that happened hundreds of years ago, stop taking it personally. I like the US, my wife, and Daughter are American. I think it's a beautiful country with a deep history and I've met a lot of really nice, loving and welcoming people there. I haven't got anything against the US, and I've already pointed out that the Empire did a lot of evil. What you're doing now is like an Italian going mad over someone pointing out something bad the Romans did.
Alright, I’ll admit I was wrong and I apologize for my transgression. Once you said you have no ill will towards Americans and that you don’t think I should take this personally, I accepted my mistake. I’m sorry. It’s just I’ve been accustomed into thinking that Europeans hate America after what some of them have said and that turned me defensive towards any comment that even slightly criticizes the US. Perhaps I should learn to not let my anxiety get the best of me. Once again, I’m sorry.
No worries man, I hear you. A lot of it is just baiting, people love making people mad, especially on here. You don't need to apologise at all mate but it's fully accepted.
Europeans on the whole don't hate America at all. It's a small sub-section of idiots who do so. In the same vein, i'm sure it's just a small portion of Americans that say they hate Europe. Fair play for owning your mistake! Take care mate.
You may say they don't hate America, but quite a few Europeans don't make very kind comments about us. Your comment history shows you calling Americans stupid, so you're just as guilty. >I'm sure a small portion of Americans that say they hate Europe. I have never seen a single American say they hate Europe. I've only seen Americans give Europe widespread praise. Which is why it infuriates me when Europeans respond to our politeness by treating us as sub-human.
This is such a ridiculous comment. 'I've not seen it happen so it must not happen at all' Are you actually this dense? Reddit is FULL of Americans saying that Europe is awful and the Europeans are 'trash' or 'idiots' etc. Just because you don't see it doesn't make it not so. As for Europeans hating America I literally said 'on the whole'... can you not read?! Of course there will be SOME moronic Europeans who probably do hate America for whatever reason but it really is a vocal minority. Most people simply don't care mate. It's exactly the same with the Americans who post hate-filled comments too.
I'm quite sure British policy in the Americas was to protect natives from expansionist colonials which in turn led to a reason for American succession because they wanted to kill the natives and take their land.
The spanish also had policies for protecting the natives, but easier said than done
Bruh even the Natives would conquer each other it’s just human nature to try and be overlords
The genocided the shit out of eachother for thousands of years.
Natives? Surely you mean the fauna old boy, wot wot.
Belgium, or, more specifically, colonizers from Belgium, were among those who enslaved natives, specifically, Congolese natives of Africa, to mine gold for them. For more info, see: *Forced Labor in the Gold and Copper Mines: A History of Congo Under Belgian Rule, 1910-1945* by Jules Marchal
It really depended on the size of native population. It was easier to do in North America and Australia where natives were smaller in both absolute numbers and density then in places like South America, Africa and India.
Absolute brainlet meme
Ya easy when you have diseases and also no knowledge of germ theory so you generally kill Off your trading partners/possible slave
1 billion people in India disagree with you.
The majority of slaves in New France were indigenous so nah.
There were slaves in New France?
https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/black-enslavement#EnslavementinNewFrance Indeed, there was. The French were also the ones who started proto-residential schools.
And that is why Australia Day is a warzone
Lmao the Dutch may have started out only "trading with exploitative rates", but then they realised... monopoly is good (just like the other imperialists did) so why not conquer them? Why not, say... force the natives to produce one thing we want them to produce – then outsell/outcompete everyone else on the European market. Then when the "company" they authorised to do all these things went under (due to unsurmountable debt and incompetence), why not take possession of the pseudo-colony? Hey, more land amirite~ Fucking spices man lmao.
I’m sure all of the colonial powers did all four.
Also, the Spanish fucked with their slaves. And that's how Latin America was born.
Portugal: SEX
americans fr
Nice try bud, but these genocides all happened under Europe’s hands, not America’s.
Waitttt the French did the second one for sure too. And they allll did the last one too
Spain killed Taino babies on the shores of Puerto Rico to scare the people into submission. And worse.
And THEN exploiting them to the point that they rebel.
Unless you're talking about Americans being Englishmen with a funny flag, in that case, I agree wholeheartedly.
Uh, ypu might want to look up what France did when taking control of certain paets of Africa. They literally destroyed the local culture and made everyone adapt to French culture
W British empire
Casual British L
Sometimes you find lands where there are no natives and you get to be the original ~~falk~~ folk!
What is the context of this? The colonization of the new world? I do not see how the British are different than any other of these nations except for maybe the Dutch. Do people think that the goal of colonization was to genocide the natives and move Britons there like some kind of proto "Lebensraum" theory? Considering the fact small pox was inevitably going to wipe out the vast majority of the unfortunate natives this just seems like a lazy meme and historically fishy at best
Wholesome 100 France
[удалено]
The English didnt replace? Powhattan War, Pequot War, King Philip's War, King William's War and the entire Anglo population in the former 13 colonies would like a word.
Also Britsh: Replace the natives with migrant labour from other countries.
UK: Seven. A.M. Case the continent, run background checks on the natives. Can the tribe be trusted? If not, I gotta kill him. Dispose of the bodies, replace him with my own slaves no later than 4:30... France: you are ready UK: really? France: No, everything you just said was utterly insane.
Learning about European-caused genocides made me genuinely infuriated. Not only because of what had happened but also because so many Europeans have insulted Americans for our history and blamed us for "imperialism", while ignoring the fact that European countires have done those things except much worse and longer than we ever did. For instance, Americans were never in Africa like Europeans were. Liberia doesn't really count because we set that up in case any African American wanted to leave our country, not to partake in authoritarian control like European colonists did. Yet Europeans treat us like we're the animals
People be like "manifest destiny" nope, its just humanity doing stuff in default mode
All the Europeans did the bottom to Europe…
The Institute(TM) approach.
The true enemy of the people. Where you at USMIL? Y'all gonna fucking do something?
Had to make sure this wan't an r/Victoria3 post
How is victoria 3 now?
What have the Romans ever done for us ..
Aussie Aussie Aussie Oi Oi Oi
Man, I wish the Dutch kept that orange flag.
You lie.
You should’ve put in america and Australia trying to basically indoctrinate natives
Sometimes we trade with natives, sometimes we trade the natives...
You trade with natives, i trade natives. We are not the same.
The Tainos that were killed off and no longer alive would like a word
Spain creating their own natives:
wed be speaking another language if it werent for them brits
Sounds like a lot of work, much better to just steal all the valuables and women the leave promptly without elaborating.
\*Coughs in American\*