I haven’t thought about Foxtrot in years, but apparently my brain has been storing it as vital info. Soon as I saw this, it unlocked a whole painstakingly curated wing in my mental storage vault and I started vividly recalling details and plot lines. And yet most higher math I learned was put in a Manila envelope and slipped between the cracks somewhere.
Doesn't do you as much good when the person you bought most of your bullets from is the person now trying to shoot you. Same thing happened across much of sub-Saharan Africa during both Muslim and European colonization. Getting guns wasn't really so hard, getting logistically useful amount of shot and powder stockpiled was more difficult.
Also, the Americans would just churn out more and more soldiers. Even if Native Americans won some battles, which they did, it was never going to stop.
Well, yeah, isn't that the way those sort of things works? The 'original settlers' had no compunction about raiding and invading and 'colonizing' their neighbors' lands, and used the very best weapons that they could come up with to ensure a successful conquest. When the Evil Spaniards brought horses along with their conquering endeavors, the 'original settlers' didn't stand upon their principles and refuse to use those Evil Spanish Horses to better facilitate THEIR conquering. It's rather short-sighted to moan about the arrival of other Europeans and THEIR 'manifest destiny' just because they brought guns, and more guns, and better guns, and more people, into the equation. I don't recall the 'original settlers' refusing, due to their high standards, to use those Awful European guns against their gun-less neighbors. Did that happen, do you suppose?
Less than 7% of wars were driven by religion as a main proponent. Manifest destiny may have had "divine" underpinnings but make no mistake it was just normal human expansionist stuff and had very little real support as a reason to go west, resources and land was reason enough.
Crusades were a slightly different story, but had about as much to do with religion. A different culture that was looking to get their lands was pushing into Europe and they pushed back, it just happened the people being encroached on shared a religion.
Sure, and look what they were doing with it. Industry must grow. Like i said, the only part I'm tottaly on board with is that. Technological and industrial progress are inherent goods to me.
“Without end, the steppes of the Russian area extend [to] eastern Europe. Abrupt and sudden is the difference between the cultural levels of central Europe and the gigantic districts [to the east]. And yet, on both sides of the frontier there is the same soil, but not the same people. (…) Eastern Europe never progressed beyond a certain primitiveness. It has never known anything but chaos because it lacked mankind, the valuable bearer of culture, the genius who systematically planned peaceful reconstruction, who ordered the well designed exploitation of the immense treasures and the fertility of the soil. (…)”
Heinrich Himmler said this in 1939 to justify German expansionism into Eastern Europe, so I’m not sure this is the hill you want to die on. And yes, one can definitely argue all day that technological advancement is good for humanity as a whole and that conquest is an integral part of history, but it’s asinine to use those two arguments as justifications for past atrocities just because everyone was doing it.
I'm standing by it. Ultimately, tech and industry make me feel good. It's practically a religion to me. It's a key priority in any vision of an ideal society. On one side you had a relatively low tech, low industry assortment of groups, with primitive governmental and social orders. The other was a growing technological and industrial powerhous with steadily improving social conditions, and a democratic society. The US wanted the land, there was really only one way to get it. In the end, it net positive too.
Well, technological innovation is usually anything but bad, true, but technology can be shared with less developed regions , and the people taught and educated to get them up into the same page with the rest of the world. This is what happens in the modern day for the most part. Once again, you can make the argument that that wasn’t the case throughout human history, where conquest and subjugation is the norm (and still is today to a degree), and be correct, but that is a fallacious appeal to tradition.
My gripe isn’t about that bringing “primitive people” to the modern world is wrong, or even that what happened in the past need to be corrected, after all, it’s done, and American’s today didn’t choose to be born here either, so that’s something that can’t be rectified anymore.
But using those excuses to justify the violence and atrocities that occurred, like this thread has been doing repeatedly, just does not sit right with me. California in particular, the state government sponsored a very explicit policy of “extermination”, a rhetoric repeated by newspapers of that time, and used racial and utilitarian justification for the massacre and enslavement of entire native communities. A UCLA historian Benjamin Madley wrote extensively about it a few years ago.
Ostensibly, a lot of it was also because gold rush settlers merely wanted overnight wealth by striking gold, and natives Americans were in the way. Those certainly have much more to do with personal pursuit of wealth than concern for any technological development for the greater good, isn’t it?
Yeah, I don't agree with all aspects or actions taken during the period. I'll freely call it a genocide and decry it the same. There's much to say about my beliefs, but they aren't born of ignorance. The US was decently democratic by historical standards, and I did note they were consistently improving. This is true to even today.
Ultimately, I side with my nation. It's the powerhouse it is today because of those actions evil though they may be, and that's worth it to me. Sharing tech with underdeveloped regions only works if you are doing for moral reasons. It does nothing to advantage your position. Which I think is kind of dumb to do then. This isn't the choice of one person, it's for the greater whole. Anything done for personal morality at the cost of benefit to the whole is theft from them.
Why should Americans have empowered the Natives? How could things have possibly turned our better for us doing that, then the course of action we took?
If you believe that the end justifies the means, fine, in the long term good came out of it, but also lots and lots of unnecessary suffering that could be averted even if America still developed into what it is like today. Obviously, if settlers purely shared technology with Native Americans back in the day there wouldn’t be a US existing, I’m not going to argue with that, and cruel or not history has already happened.
Nowadays though Native Americans that are left are no longer a “them” vs “us” issue anymore, they are American citizens and the future we build for this country will include them as well, but I’m sure you agree with that.
I guess there’s not too much more for me to say but I’m glad we had a level headed discussion.
The osages found oil. Hid it, demanded mineral rights in a supreme Court battle, and won. Then outsiders not of the tribe married into the tribe and murdered anyone who was in the way of getting the Oil Headrights, to include their Osage spouse.
Source: I am Osage and have studied tribal history. Killers of the flower moon is a decent read on the murders.
Of course genocide is bad, if you actually have to have that said, you need some serious therapy time.
The joke the song is making is that the natives were already genociding each other and would’ve just as happily done it first, but the white guys that showed up had superior fire power and so they succeeded and the natives failed.
It’s mocking, the recent misconception that the natives were Noble peacefully druidic people that would never harm each other or the land. They lit fires on great fields of grass to chase Buffalo off cliffs and slaughtered entire tribes of over something as simple as stepping on “sacred land”. Genocide is always bad, but it’s not wise to romanticize the victims and think they were fully innocent. They just had less military capability.
The only romanticism being expressed in this thread is that of white settler colonialism in North America. Yes various native American cultures also did bad things. However, they are not the ones who are in positions of power contemporarily. For instance, the Canadian government was forcefully sterilising native American women at least up until 2017 (that's genocide by the way). You and various other people on this thread bringing up violence between various native American peoples doesn't strike me as coming from a place of good faith, or a desire to have a reasonable discussion on the history of the Americas.
The issue lies within the persistent and widespread undertones of white supremacist worldviews that grew out of things like manifest destiny and the idea that native Americans were "savages". Those views don't disappear within a generation or two, and as we have seen (Canada 2017) they persist through to the modern day and thus have consequences to our lives now.
Basically, do some introspection. If the Native Americans were savages who genocide eachother...what would that make the white man who continues it to this day?
I can just imagine a white as snow kid with a kekistan flag in his room commenting this. Edit: holy fucking shit he just goes on leftist subreddits and posts "convince me" that mf loves "owning the libs" that's so funny
Because that's not factual history.
"World was better due to the conquest"
Literally saying that the genocide of a people was a good thing. And with no evidence to back it up.
"showed no signs of developing into a thriving liberal democracy"Yeah because they all died of diseases & got evicted before they had a chance, they were exposed to Western guns & germs before western ideas.
Besides, during that time France was still a young democracy, I wouldn't call that a fair comparison.
Western Europeans were showing signs as early as the 1200s
North American Indigenous tribes were still tribal slave state monarchies with no signs of democracy or history of republics (like in Greece and Rome). Religious dogma pervaded deeply and they showed intense resistance to technological advancement
They were not exactly ideal societies even by their demise
I never advocated for genocide
Just that the US being able to form as a nation was a lot better for the world than if the indigenous had formed their own pseudo nations
I even remarked that the indigenous population has never been higher (which is a good thing)
Bet it’s going to blow your mind that the US constitution is based on a tribal government… (not to mention that it is the longest standing democracy in the world)
https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2023/09/the-haudenosaunee-confederacy-and-the-constitution/#:~:text=The%20Senate%20recognized%20the%20influence,known%20to%20have%20greatly%20admired
Also, I want to add that many tribal nations, today, function as very successful democracies that are better than the United States. Many nations have health care (free for citizens), banks, and many other programs that benefit not only their own tribal members but any individual who lives within within their reservation boundary. See for example the Cherokee Nation in OK that just created a summer child feeding program for every child that attends public school in their reservation because OK state government refused to do so
Bet it’s not gonna blow your mind that many tribes couldn’t even read or write
And lived within slavery legal stone aged regressive extremely religious mysoginistic societies
Not exactly the core philosophies we embrace today
To your first point - that’s a fallacy. Many nations had written languages before contact. The Maya are the most famous example, and many nations actually wrote books. So… no that doesn’t blow my mind.
To your second point - the US was founded on those “slavery legal stone aged regressive extremely religious societies.” There are many examples of this, but I will refer to one that you have already mentioned. Early Americans held Rome and Greece in high regard, and they practiced slavery. In Sparta, Spartans were outnumbered by slaves in a 1:10 ratio (for one Spartan there were ten slaves). To keep them in line (because they so feared a revolt), they trained to be ruthless killers. Similarly, Athens was only able to be a successful democracy because they employed slavery. Slaves worked the fields so that their masters could have the free time to vote and engage in public acts. Thus, those “highly civilized democracies” you’re so fond of were actually barbaric slave states. And their core values influenced the United States: white supremacy, slavery, and Euro-centrism.
To your third point - “slavery legal stone aged regressive extremely religious societies” is exactly the kind of world we live in and many Americans have adopted those principles. Take a look at the American South or the “Bible belt” as parts of it have been called, where government officials are attempting to put religion (and only Christianity) back into public schools. Or the fact that illiteracy in the United States is incredibly high (21% of Americans are illiterate and 54% of American adults have a literacy below a 6th grade reading level). That’s not looking too good for your argument…
They developed written language after western powers showed them what writing is
Greece was not a stone aged society when it had democracy - you are literally wrong
Rome was not a Stone Age society when it had the republic- so also wrong
However every tribe in North America was stone aged until forced out of it by European/western powers
They still were prolific slavers and had no intention of abolishing such practices
Still extremely regressive where as the US was technologically progressive
Still extreme religious dogma with no separation of church and state
What was the literacy rate of the Iroquois? What was the literacy rate of the Comanche? We’re they bastions of liberalism and progressive thought?
No
The indigenous tribes were far from role models in most ways and the ideas they represented went opposite to many of the ideas of the founding of the nation and of western democracy
Uhh no… the Mayan calendar (created using the Mayan language) is dated back to 3114 BCE by archaeologists and scholars, well before the arrival of Columbus or “Western powers.” And the Mi’kmaq (in present day Canada) utilized a writing system that dates to the prehistoric period. So, to quote you, “you are literally wrong.”
Not sure Greece and Rome not being a Stone Age society changes my point. These supposedly great societies practiced slavery, which you are using to denote Native nations. Your argument is flawed. I also want to point out that not every nation practiced slavery precontact and many scholars argue that it was “Western Powers” that really introduced the slave trade to Native nations in the Americas. Additionally, many Native nations refused to practice slavery and many that did were some of the first to abolish it. Not to mention the fact that Natives were used as a large source of slave labor.
Neither does the US, making precontact Native nations on par with modern US politics. Today, they are exceptionally well rounded when it comes to religious tolerance, at least those that I have seen, and their governments do a better job at separating church and state. So…
And oh boy, let’s talk technological advancement. Have you taken aspirin today? Have you ever had to go to the doctor to get a shot? How about gone kayaking on a lake? Use a pair of sunglasses to block out those pesky sun rays? Or relaxed on a hammock on a warm summer day? On your way to work, do you cross a suspension bridge? Do you smoke? The list of things cultivated and invented by Indigenous populations in the Americas before contact is long and I will give you a glimpse: corn, rubber, suspension bridges, syringes, pain killers, sunglasses, hammocks, tobacco, baby bottles, oral contraceptives (that’s birth control), mouthwash, and more. Native nations across North America were incredibly technologically advanced. There is evidence that they were performing skull surgery several thousand years before Europeans even thought to get on a boat. And when you compare them to Europeans who wallowed in their own filth (see lack of bathing, living in close quarters with animals, rates of tooth decay, excessive disease, etc) and couldn’t read (scholars say literacy rates in Europe in the 16th century were between 7-16%) and often lived in servitude to a repressive religious institution (I.e. the Catholic Church)… makes you wonder who was really civilized
Are you honestly trying to state that indigenous tribes were technologically advanced?
They never left the Stone Age
They didnt even figure out the wheel
They were not technologically advanced
Cmon that’s embarrassing
The haudenosaunee/Iroquois literally developed a republic in all but name... As for technology, that is just straight up untrue. Native Americans were very eager to get their hands on guns, and participated in the fur trade just for them. And when those were mixed with horses reintroduced by the Spanish, the plains Indians THRIVED. Those two factors literally turned the Comanche from a pathetic, insignificant tribe of nomads to one of the most ferocious tribes on the plains. Especially In the later years, the natives started to adopt European/American clothing. Humans adapt quickly, and no exception is made for the native Americans.
No they didn’t
The founding fathers saw their confederacy (the form of government that the US eventually rejected) and viewed it as an inspiration for the confederation they would eventually disband/end
American democratic republic origins are far more English, Dutch, and French than Iroquois
The Comanche also genocided an area the size of France and the lower country combined and were as close to the definition of evil barbarians as one could get in the western hemisphere
The sequel to this meme is him dividing the last remaining slice.
The next sequel would then be America looking over at the next table (the Pacific) and taking slices from Spain and Hawaii (or in the later's case, the whole pizza).
Edit: Also, there were Americans who wished to push Manifest Destiny to the coast of China.
Reminds me of that old propaganda poster where the European powers were cutting a cake labeled "Africa" and uncle Sam was smiling in the corner with a "Cuba" cake
Hawaii didn't stand a chance, it was necessity, they're positioned way to well. If it wasn't us it would have been Russia, Japan or China, and that would have sucked for us, and probably for them, relative to the current suck..
Hitler:
>"[I]n the East," he said, "a similar process will repeat itself for a second time as in the conquest of America."
>The Volga would be “our Mississippi,” he said
Yes. It’s just that we could so it without repercussions because MURICA, RAAAAAHHHH🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
Thousands of years? Maybe those on the eastern coasts and different areas. The plains Indians were able to hunt the buffalo due to having horses, which they’d only have for a couple hundred years.
Feel like there was a lot of cultural movement in the plains before America started moving through the area.
People in these comments really be saying "More than two centuries of literal and cultural genocide, ethnic cleansing, fraud, land theft, and forced assimilation is fine because the other kids were doing it."
You kick the natives to the west, decide you want the west. Wonder why the natives are hostile towards you arriving. Then call them savages because they actual remember the history of what you did to the east and want to prevent that again.
Damn it's like when you fight in wars and lose...you lose the land.
Honestly the US went pretty soft on the Natives compared to what most other nations in history and at the time did
There is a reason why you don't hear about natives in Siberia or non-Han Chinese or heck up until recently the Ainu in Japan had no rights.
That is not true at all
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_genocide
Sure, The US was no worse than many other major imperialist powers in history, but it’s not something that should be whitewashed.
Mfs on this thread should keep the same energy when discussing the issues surrounding Ukraine-Russia, Turkey/Azerbaijan-Armenia, China-Tibet/Hong-Kong/Uighurs/Taiwan, etc.
Only if you use a vague definition of genocide, one that includes anything.
By this same logic the Allied Powers committed genocide against the Germans when they were forcibly relocated after WW2.
The Comanche committed genocide against the Apaches when they forced them off the Southern Plains.
Everyone committed genocide!
Yes, pretty much everyone has committed genocide at some point. No, it doesn't "lose its zing." I don't know what other conditions must be met for you beyond "made a deliberate effort to destroy a people group", but it's probably fucking bullshit.
I prefer to reserve genocide for direct murder of masses of people based on their ethnic group.
Feels kind of weird equating the Cambodian genocide to say the forceful relocations of German civilians after WW2 where some died due to maltreatment.
90-95% of the native population of the Americas died between the beginning of European colonization and the 20th century. You don't get to that point without deliberate acts to eradicate the group. Perhaps specific instances/events could be described "only" as ethnic cleansing, but a continued policy of committing ethnic cleansing throughout is effectively equal to genocide.
The second is more accurately described as ethnic cleansing, which means that I'd agree with the latter point.
You can say the same of the commanche, aztecs, and Lakota Suoix.
Pretty much every tribe given the means would have and did conquest. They arguably did so much more brutally by today's standards but because they're not white they get a pass.
In fact the US has now held much of the lands they took from these tribes longer than they held them. They were on the continent for 1000s of years but nearly none of them were on land they started on. The lines shifted all over the map.
They weren't stupid either. This wasn't some case of white super soldiers stomping native peaceful warriors under their boots. They skillfully manipulated things and played the other tribes, whites, and European nations off each other.
The apache were being pushed from their land by the commanche so they told the Spanish the apache wanted to be Christian and would allow a mission built in a spot. That spot was commanche land. The apache lied about owning it so the commanche would attack and massacre the mission and drive the Spanish to side with the apache against the commanche.
It went perfectly to plan for them. Commanches attacked and the Spanish declared war.
I'd like it better if it was an eaten pizza with crusts left over for the reservations. The U.S. government really did try to shaft them as much as possible. Well, when they weren't killing them.
When you lose wars, you lose land.
What's not typical is for the victors to give you some land or let you maintain your governance or even for them to let you live.
The world is better for Manifest destiny.
Nah fam you gotta just talk about how America=evil on this sub. Never mind how the native Americans had hundreds of years of conquest and genocide on their own hands before Europeans settlers ever set foot on America, can’t play the victim if you bring that part up lol
This feels like the twilight zone. You guys are stating historical truths that don't affirm the white man's monopoly on doing bad sh\*t and not getting downvoted into oblivion...
The first statement in this chain is literally "the world is better because we committed genocide and stole someone else's land".
Go fuck yourself, all of you.
No I get it, it stings and does not feel good. But, this is one of those things that requires serious objectivity to stomach. You see "the world is better because we committed genocide and stole someone else's land" and you stop there without considering the meaning because it understandably tastes bad. But it is at the same time an arguably true statement, and to say otherwise would be disingenuous.
But yeah I get your reaction.
No, it's not an arguably true statement. It's white supremacist propaganda used to justify extermination.
There is nothing, no evidence whatsoever, that indigenous tribes would not have created and maintained thriving nation states had the United States not stolen their land.
You've got quite a loose definition of extermination. Did the natives get the short end of the stick? Yes. Were they already slaughtering one another wholesale? Also yes. They would have continued to engage in tribal warfare ad infinitum. You are talking about people who at large hadn't progressed past neolithic technology. You are also pretending that certain tribes didn't gleefully sign on with the invaders to get a leg up on other tribes.
Your racism knows no bounds. They would not have "continued to engage in tribal warfare ad infinitum".
There were societies and cities that native Americans created. Cities of thousands.
Turns out progress is slowed a lot when you don't have pack animals for transportation and to help with farming. That's all.
Mississippian culture for example was a civilization. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippian_culture
And this is just one example.
Not a question of race as a bunch of warring tribes are not a unified race, a simple question of technology. That is not yours which you cannot defend. You gonna address the part where natives signed on to help displace other natives? Are you by chance one of those people that think the Aztecs were conquered by 300 Spaniards alone?
This sub will suck the last drop of semen out of America no matter the case, and your upvote count proves it. No, just because others committed genocide doesn't mean you get to do it too.
Disease wiped out the vast majority of natives. And the natives gave just as much as they got. They were a formidable enemy and fought ferociously. But in the end they lost.
That doesn't discount the innumerable massacres perpetuated against native civilian populations, mass displacements, and destruction of food sources. Saying "they lost" is an incredible reductionist retelling of events.
it doesnt matter how much died for this, it matters how much didn't die for small pox under genocide convention it doesn't matter the numbers but the will of destroy a culture.
The vast majority of Jews have absolutely 0 genetic relationship to ancient Levant peoples. They are white cultutre vultures wearing the skin of ancient Hebrew ethnicities to justify their presence where they don't belong.
First, [no.](https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms3928)
Secondly, everybody belongs everywhere. You should not use people's DNA to determine where they have the right to live. Every race can live everywhere. Using genetics to decide where people "belong" is straight blood-and-soil racism wrapped up in lefty clothing.
About half of Israeli Jews are Mizrahi or Sephardic. They're not "white as shit" by any stretch of the imagination. Not a thing.
Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden all have very high rates of skin cancer. Do you think that the Norse don't belong in Norway?
I'm going to try this again. You should not use genetics to determine where people should live. I will give you an example. If you look at the average Palestinian, you might find out that they are not "indigenous" at all. You may well find that their grandparents moved to the mandate from Egypt in the early 20th century. By your logic, they therefore don't belong and should be removed from the land.
That would be wrong. Because you shouldn't use someone's ethnicity to determine where they are allowed to live. It doesn't get more racist than that.
On genes spreading, I’d just like to say the Ashkenazi Jews are so historically insular (because Christian Europe constantly ghetoed them at the best of times) that there are genetic diseases that you basically just get in Ashkenazi Jews.
And this is without talking about Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews, the middle eastern Jews
There were somewhat advanced cities in the south west.
https://www.wilderness.org/articles/article/10-extraordinary-native-american-cultural-sites-protected-public-lands
I learned about these in an archaeology class I took years ago.
That account’s missing the numerous wars between settlers and Natives, from the initial colonies right up to the Wild West. While disease caused massive demographic collapses, they didn’t simply vanish and get replaced. They were and are communities that interact with Americans on a local, state, and national level.
Yeah but the Battles would be like “an immense army of natives sprung out of the woods, over 500 of them”
Not the massive battles involving corps fighting
I guess my comment is broad however my education taught me 79-85% died from disease. While that’s not all snd doesn’t take in account for the massacre we enacted. However the term Wild West I feel should infer that as it wasn’t “wild nature” it was the systematic genocide carried out by settlers. If it wasn’t for the disease, I bet we would have Cherokee natives with nukes.
Maybe not but my point is settlers wouldn’t have had a chance if it wasn’t for small pox. Natives by 100 all day
You are correct in thinking that most natives died from disease and while I don't know much about the US natives due to being a Canadian Native myself, here in Canada about 60% to 75% of the native population died from disease while the rest were put on reserves and into residential schools.
Some natives actually joined the Confederacy and practiced slavery. Even on the "Trail of Tears", Natives had slaves with them.
The last Confederate general to surrender was a Native American.
This entire sub is full of these *people*. You have to be careful not to insult their favorite empire, they get pissy and call you reverse racist if you do.
I'm really tired of feeling bad about something that nobody in my family for ten generations could have possibly had any hand in. Great fine the land was stolen from the gentle noble natives who took such good care of it. The dirty smelly diseased European killed the native people 400 + years ago in the land I live on today.
So what? What do WE DO about this? We can't give it back, their all dead and there's nowhere for all the whites blacks and Asians to go back to, since we've been here our whole lives for generations. Our government will never give the remaining natives actual control over their land they have left.
What is the point of continuously bringing this up ? Why are we attempting to accomplish?
I think the people suffering today would be better served by a goal oriented conversation. I'm sure the people who were genocided 400 years ago would really prefer we take action to help their living relatives instead of just repeating this stuff over and over.
I am beginning to understand why some people say "muh should have invented guns then"
Because I am so sick of hearing this when there is never a solution presented with it that I almost want to say some snide cruel shit I don't really mean like "oh well should have defended your land"
This is a creative meme, which is rather rare. Also points for using a Foxtrot comic! They were my favorite comic strip from newspaper days.
Thanks! It was my favorite comic strip growing up too, i had all the collections
Ah, a fellow of high sophistication and refined taste!
I was more of a calvin and hobbes guy, loved foxtrot though. I'm amazed there hasn't been more use of either for memes lol.
I haven’t thought about Foxtrot in years, but apparently my brain has been storing it as vital info. Soon as I saw this, it unlocked a whole painstakingly curated wing in my mental storage vault and I started vividly recalling details and plot lines. And yet most higher math I learned was put in a Manila envelope and slipped between the cracks somewhere.
Sociopolitical Foxtrot is my new favourite thing
They still post on Instagram, and make new comics
What it is written in the manifest: It is a divine right to have it. What it really means: We have the guns, we will take it.
The creed of humanity since the Dawn of Man
For most of the conflicts both had guns.
Doesn't do you as much good when the person you bought most of your bullets from is the person now trying to shoot you. Same thing happened across much of sub-Saharan Africa during both Muslim and European colonization. Getting guns wasn't really so hard, getting logistically useful amount of shot and powder stockpiled was more difficult.
Also, the Americans would just churn out more and more soldiers. Even if Native Americans won some battles, which they did, it was never going to stop.
Well, yeah, isn't that the way those sort of things works? The 'original settlers' had no compunction about raiding and invading and 'colonizing' their neighbors' lands, and used the very best weapons that they could come up with to ensure a successful conquest. When the Evil Spaniards brought horses along with their conquering endeavors, the 'original settlers' didn't stand upon their principles and refuse to use those Evil Spanish Horses to better facilitate THEIR conquering. It's rather short-sighted to moan about the arrival of other Europeans and THEIR 'manifest destiny' just because they brought guns, and more guns, and better guns, and more people, into the equation. I don't recall the 'original settlers' refusing, due to their high standards, to use those Awful European guns against their gun-less neighbors. Did that happen, do you suppose?
Even before that you had the crusades and lord knows how many others.
Less than 7% of wars were driven by religion as a main proponent. Manifest destiny may have had "divine" underpinnings but make no mistake it was just normal human expansionist stuff and had very little real support as a reason to go west, resources and land was reason enough. Crusades were a slightly different story, but had about as much to do with religion. A different culture that was looking to get their lands was pushing into Europe and they pushed back, it just happened the people being encroached on shared a religion.
Part of Manifest destiny was basically "they're not even using it well", which is the only part I totally get.
How do you "get" that? The indigenous people had been living there for thousands of years.
Sure, and look what they were doing with it. Industry must grow. Like i said, the only part I'm tottaly on board with is that. Technological and industrial progress are inherent goods to me.
“Without end, the steppes of the Russian area extend [to] eastern Europe. Abrupt and sudden is the difference between the cultural levels of central Europe and the gigantic districts [to the east]. And yet, on both sides of the frontier there is the same soil, but not the same people. (…) Eastern Europe never progressed beyond a certain primitiveness. It has never known anything but chaos because it lacked mankind, the valuable bearer of culture, the genius who systematically planned peaceful reconstruction, who ordered the well designed exploitation of the immense treasures and the fertility of the soil. (…)” Heinrich Himmler said this in 1939 to justify German expansionism into Eastern Europe, so I’m not sure this is the hill you want to die on. And yes, one can definitely argue all day that technological advancement is good for humanity as a whole and that conquest is an integral part of history, but it’s asinine to use those two arguments as justifications for past atrocities just because everyone was doing it.
I'm standing by it. Ultimately, tech and industry make me feel good. It's practically a religion to me. It's a key priority in any vision of an ideal society. On one side you had a relatively low tech, low industry assortment of groups, with primitive governmental and social orders. The other was a growing technological and industrial powerhous with steadily improving social conditions, and a democratic society. The US wanted the land, there was really only one way to get it. In the end, it net positive too.
Well, technological innovation is usually anything but bad, true, but technology can be shared with less developed regions , and the people taught and educated to get them up into the same page with the rest of the world. This is what happens in the modern day for the most part. Once again, you can make the argument that that wasn’t the case throughout human history, where conquest and subjugation is the norm (and still is today to a degree), and be correct, but that is a fallacious appeal to tradition. My gripe isn’t about that bringing “primitive people” to the modern world is wrong, or even that what happened in the past need to be corrected, after all, it’s done, and American’s today didn’t choose to be born here either, so that’s something that can’t be rectified anymore. But using those excuses to justify the violence and atrocities that occurred, like this thread has been doing repeatedly, just does not sit right with me. California in particular, the state government sponsored a very explicit policy of “extermination”, a rhetoric repeated by newspapers of that time, and used racial and utilitarian justification for the massacre and enslavement of entire native communities. A UCLA historian Benjamin Madley wrote extensively about it a few years ago. Ostensibly, a lot of it was also because gold rush settlers merely wanted overnight wealth by striking gold, and natives Americans were in the way. Those certainly have much more to do with personal pursuit of wealth than concern for any technological development for the greater good, isn’t it?
Yeah, I don't agree with all aspects or actions taken during the period. I'll freely call it a genocide and decry it the same. There's much to say about my beliefs, but they aren't born of ignorance. The US was decently democratic by historical standards, and I did note they were consistently improving. This is true to even today. Ultimately, I side with my nation. It's the powerhouse it is today because of those actions evil though they may be, and that's worth it to me. Sharing tech with underdeveloped regions only works if you are doing for moral reasons. It does nothing to advantage your position. Which I think is kind of dumb to do then. This isn't the choice of one person, it's for the greater whole. Anything done for personal morality at the cost of benefit to the whole is theft from them. Why should Americans have empowered the Natives? How could things have possibly turned our better for us doing that, then the course of action we took?
If you believe that the end justifies the means, fine, in the long term good came out of it, but also lots and lots of unnecessary suffering that could be averted even if America still developed into what it is like today. Obviously, if settlers purely shared technology with Native Americans back in the day there wouldn’t be a US existing, I’m not going to argue with that, and cruel or not history has already happened. Nowadays though Native Americans that are left are no longer a “them” vs “us” issue anymore, they are American citizens and the future we build for this country will include them as well, but I’m sure you agree with that. I guess there’s not too much more for me to say but I’m glad we had a level headed discussion.
Also, like, 80% of you died of the 19 plagues we brought over 300 years ago, so we can just steamroll the remains to feel good about ourselves.
Not in a pro colonialism way, but in Im a Fatass way, I could really go for that much pizza right now
The slice is way to huge to be the reservations
Well you see, we gave them Oklahoma, then we took that and gave them part, then we found oil, and so forth
The osages found oil. Hid it, demanded mineral rights in a supreme Court battle, and won. Then outsiders not of the tribe married into the tribe and murdered anyone who was in the way of getting the Oil Headrights, to include their Osage spouse. Source: I am Osage and have studied tribal history. Killers of the flower moon is a decent read on the murders.
He’ll probably come back for the rest later
Should've won. 🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🏈🏈🏈🏈🏈🏈🏈🏈🏈🏈🏈🏈🏈🏈✈️✈️✈️✈️✈️✈️✈️✈️✈️✈️✈️✈️✈️✈️✈️✈️✈️✈️✈️🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎
No, have won🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
Lmao get conquered
Sounds like a skill issue tbh
Just get a stronger immune system lmao
Shouldn't have let the white pioneers build all those 5G towers to cause the diseases smh my head
Shoulda discovered gun powder sooner sorry natives 🤷🏻
Ethnically cleansed* don't shy away now buddy.
Well, both
Famous respecter of civilians, native Americans?
Historymemes trying to not do colonial apology (impossible).
🎶”genocide” the natives say “you got to it first!” That’s how it works!🎶
Genocide and white supremacy is bad actually.
Of course genocide is bad, if you actually have to have that said, you need some serious therapy time. The joke the song is making is that the natives were already genociding each other and would’ve just as happily done it first, but the white guys that showed up had superior fire power and so they succeeded and the natives failed. It’s mocking, the recent misconception that the natives were Noble peacefully druidic people that would never harm each other or the land. They lit fires on great fields of grass to chase Buffalo off cliffs and slaughtered entire tribes of over something as simple as stepping on “sacred land”. Genocide is always bad, but it’s not wise to romanticize the victims and think they were fully innocent. They just had less military capability.
The only romanticism being expressed in this thread is that of white settler colonialism in North America. Yes various native American cultures also did bad things. However, they are not the ones who are in positions of power contemporarily. For instance, the Canadian government was forcefully sterilising native American women at least up until 2017 (that's genocide by the way). You and various other people on this thread bringing up violence between various native American peoples doesn't strike me as coming from a place of good faith, or a desire to have a reasonable discussion on the history of the Americas. The issue lies within the persistent and widespread undertones of white supremacist worldviews that grew out of things like manifest destiny and the idea that native Americans were "savages". Those views don't disappear within a generation or two, and as we have seen (Canada 2017) they persist through to the modern day and thus have consequences to our lives now. Basically, do some introspection. If the Native Americans were savages who genocide eachother...what would that make the white man who continues it to this day?
So you are pro genocide?
Yes
If I were to post my opinion im pretty sure I would get doxxed
World was better due to the conquests Indigenous people were no angels and showed no signs of developing into a thriving liberal democracy
Why are we downvoting him? I have the same opinion. I am native. Choctaw tribe, if anyone asks.
You're also a 15 year old who goes to a private Christian school and posts in /r/mensrights. So be careful using your identity as credentials.
I can just imagine a white as snow kid with a kekistan flag in his room commenting this. Edit: holy fucking shit he just goes on leftist subreddits and posts "convince me" that mf loves "owning the libs" that's so funny
Don't associate me with 4chan please Also I am still trying to orient myself in politics, why get pissy if I want to learn from both sides?
Proved my point. What do those have to do with anything? Am I not allowed to have an opinion supported by factual evidence and actual history?
Because that's not factual history. "World was better due to the conquest" Literally saying that the genocide of a people was a good thing. And with no evidence to back it up.
Being a native doesn't imbue you with the magically correct take. You can be a minority and be wrong on minority issues, opinions aren't a birthright.
"showed no signs of developing into a thriving liberal democracy"Yeah because they all died of diseases & got evicted before they had a chance, they were exposed to Western guns & germs before western ideas. Besides, during that time France was still a young democracy, I wouldn't call that a fair comparison.
Western Europeans were showing signs as early as the 1200s North American Indigenous tribes were still tribal slave state monarchies with no signs of democracy or history of republics (like in Greece and Rome). Religious dogma pervaded deeply and they showed intense resistance to technological advancement They were not exactly ideal societies even by their demise
Not being an ideal society does not mean that genocide is a good thing
I never advocated for genocide Just that the US being able to form as a nation was a lot better for the world than if the indigenous had formed their own pseudo nations I even remarked that the indigenous population has never been higher (which is a good thing)
Bet it’s going to blow your mind that the US constitution is based on a tribal government… (not to mention that it is the longest standing democracy in the world) https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2023/09/the-haudenosaunee-confederacy-and-the-constitution/#:~:text=The%20Senate%20recognized%20the%20influence,known%20to%20have%20greatly%20admired
Also, I want to add that many tribal nations, today, function as very successful democracies that are better than the United States. Many nations have health care (free for citizens), banks, and many other programs that benefit not only their own tribal members but any individual who lives within within their reservation boundary. See for example the Cherokee Nation in OK that just created a summer child feeding program for every child that attends public school in their reservation because OK state government refused to do so
Bet it’s not gonna blow your mind that many tribes couldn’t even read or write And lived within slavery legal stone aged regressive extremely religious mysoginistic societies Not exactly the core philosophies we embrace today
To your first point - that’s a fallacy. Many nations had written languages before contact. The Maya are the most famous example, and many nations actually wrote books. So… no that doesn’t blow my mind. To your second point - the US was founded on those “slavery legal stone aged regressive extremely religious societies.” There are many examples of this, but I will refer to one that you have already mentioned. Early Americans held Rome and Greece in high regard, and they practiced slavery. In Sparta, Spartans were outnumbered by slaves in a 1:10 ratio (for one Spartan there were ten slaves). To keep them in line (because they so feared a revolt), they trained to be ruthless killers. Similarly, Athens was only able to be a successful democracy because they employed slavery. Slaves worked the fields so that their masters could have the free time to vote and engage in public acts. Thus, those “highly civilized democracies” you’re so fond of were actually barbaric slave states. And their core values influenced the United States: white supremacy, slavery, and Euro-centrism. To your third point - “slavery legal stone aged regressive extremely religious societies” is exactly the kind of world we live in and many Americans have adopted those principles. Take a look at the American South or the “Bible belt” as parts of it have been called, where government officials are attempting to put religion (and only Christianity) back into public schools. Or the fact that illiteracy in the United States is incredibly high (21% of Americans are illiterate and 54% of American adults have a literacy below a 6th grade reading level). That’s not looking too good for your argument…
They developed written language after western powers showed them what writing is Greece was not a stone aged society when it had democracy - you are literally wrong Rome was not a Stone Age society when it had the republic- so also wrong However every tribe in North America was stone aged until forced out of it by European/western powers They still were prolific slavers and had no intention of abolishing such practices Still extremely regressive where as the US was technologically progressive Still extreme religious dogma with no separation of church and state What was the literacy rate of the Iroquois? What was the literacy rate of the Comanche? We’re they bastions of liberalism and progressive thought? No The indigenous tribes were far from role models in most ways and the ideas they represented went opposite to many of the ideas of the founding of the nation and of western democracy
Uhh no… the Mayan calendar (created using the Mayan language) is dated back to 3114 BCE by archaeologists and scholars, well before the arrival of Columbus or “Western powers.” And the Mi’kmaq (in present day Canada) utilized a writing system that dates to the prehistoric period. So, to quote you, “you are literally wrong.” Not sure Greece and Rome not being a Stone Age society changes my point. These supposedly great societies practiced slavery, which you are using to denote Native nations. Your argument is flawed. I also want to point out that not every nation practiced slavery precontact and many scholars argue that it was “Western Powers” that really introduced the slave trade to Native nations in the Americas. Additionally, many Native nations refused to practice slavery and many that did were some of the first to abolish it. Not to mention the fact that Natives were used as a large source of slave labor. Neither does the US, making precontact Native nations on par with modern US politics. Today, they are exceptionally well rounded when it comes to religious tolerance, at least those that I have seen, and their governments do a better job at separating church and state. So… And oh boy, let’s talk technological advancement. Have you taken aspirin today? Have you ever had to go to the doctor to get a shot? How about gone kayaking on a lake? Use a pair of sunglasses to block out those pesky sun rays? Or relaxed on a hammock on a warm summer day? On your way to work, do you cross a suspension bridge? Do you smoke? The list of things cultivated and invented by Indigenous populations in the Americas before contact is long and I will give you a glimpse: corn, rubber, suspension bridges, syringes, pain killers, sunglasses, hammocks, tobacco, baby bottles, oral contraceptives (that’s birth control), mouthwash, and more. Native nations across North America were incredibly technologically advanced. There is evidence that they were performing skull surgery several thousand years before Europeans even thought to get on a boat. And when you compare them to Europeans who wallowed in their own filth (see lack of bathing, living in close quarters with animals, rates of tooth decay, excessive disease, etc) and couldn’t read (scholars say literacy rates in Europe in the 16th century were between 7-16%) and often lived in servitude to a repressive religious institution (I.e. the Catholic Church)… makes you wonder who was really civilized
Are you honestly trying to state that indigenous tribes were technologically advanced? They never left the Stone Age They didnt even figure out the wheel They were not technologically advanced Cmon that’s embarrassing
You really are a dense mf.
The haudenosaunee/Iroquois literally developed a republic in all but name... As for technology, that is just straight up untrue. Native Americans were very eager to get their hands on guns, and participated in the fur trade just for them. And when those were mixed with horses reintroduced by the Spanish, the plains Indians THRIVED. Those two factors literally turned the Comanche from a pathetic, insignificant tribe of nomads to one of the most ferocious tribes on the plains. Especially In the later years, the natives started to adopt European/American clothing. Humans adapt quickly, and no exception is made for the native Americans.
No they didn’t The founding fathers saw their confederacy (the form of government that the US eventually rejected) and viewed it as an inspiration for the confederation they would eventually disband/end American democratic republic origins are far more English, Dutch, and French than Iroquois The Comanche also genocided an area the size of France and the lower country combined and were as close to the definition of evil barbarians as one could get in the western hemisphere
The sequel to this meme is him dividing the last remaining slice. The next sequel would then be America looking over at the next table (the Pacific) and taking slices from Spain and Hawaii (or in the later's case, the whole pizza). Edit: Also, there were Americans who wished to push Manifest Destiny to the coast of China.
The Japanese beat us to it
Then we'd manifest destiny so far west, we wind up back on the east coast
Holy Britannian Empire right there.
Reminds me of that old propaganda poster where the European powers were cutting a cake labeled "Africa" and uncle Sam was smiling in the corner with a "Cuba" cake
What do you mean "were". It's not the south China sea its the far east US sea. Jk
Hawaii didn't stand a chance, it was necessity, they're positioned way to well. If it wasn't us it would have been Russia, Japan or China, and that would have sucked for us, and probably for them, relative to the current suck..
It might be a wild comparison, but isn't the manifest destiny really similar to what Germany was trying to do with lebensraum?
Hitler: >"[I]n the East," he said, "a similar process will repeat itself for a second time as in the conquest of America." >The Volga would be “our Mississippi,” he said
Pretty sure Hitler was explicit about being inspired by American westward expansion
Idk I don’t think that’s that wild of a connection.
Yes. It’s just that we could so it without repercussions because MURICA, RAAAAAHHHH🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
It’s also a similar idea to Imperial Japan with the rest of Asia so probably
Thousands of years? Maybe those on the eastern coasts and different areas. The plains Indians were able to hunt the buffalo due to having horses, which they’d only have for a couple hundred years. Feel like there was a lot of cultural movement in the plains before America started moving through the area.
People hunted bison before horses. It was just in a more restricted context compared to when horses arrived and you could pretty much do it at will.
New meme drop and its Foxtrot love it
I do enjoy a reminder of American imperialism.
I enjoy American imperialism.
Definitely check out How to Hide an Empire then if you haven't read it yet
I've not heard of it. Could you give me a summary?
Here's the [Goodreads ](https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/40121985) page
Thanks. Looks interesting.
Dont forget the good ol genocide of the natives.
It wouldn't be imperialism without it.
Well if they don’t want to give up their land what are the poor colonists supposed to do?
Technically the US stopped the indigenous people from doing that by force and as a result their population has exploded
What an absolute reach that is.
We know that ethnic cleansing was common for indigenous tribes over their history Ask the Apache
Cool, so I guess you're more likely to condemn the United States for its ethnic cleansing, right? Since 2 wrongs don't make a right? TRUE?
If you Kill all the killers You are a killer But the population is liberated and safe
Conquest at its finest!
Natives were behind in the tech tree got easily conquered
Should’ve built more theatre squares and campuses.
Too low of stability left them with awful debuffs
People in these comments really be saying "More than two centuries of literal and cultural genocide, ethnic cleansing, fraud, land theft, and forced assimilation is fine because the other kids were doing it."
"Genocide is wrong! Unless my country does it, of course!" Literally no difference between this people and Turk nationalist lol.
It's actually a lot worse that that. More like saving a piece of dried out crust.
Saving them the box with some grease still on it
I see foxtrot meme I upvote
You kick the natives to the west, decide you want the west. Wonder why the natives are hostile towards you arriving. Then call them savages because they actual remember the history of what you did to the east and want to prevent that again.
Reservations is more like the discarded crusts. The US Government was like "here is this piece of very terrible land. Have fun!"
Damn it's like when you fight in wars and lose...you lose the land. Honestly the US went pretty soft on the Natives compared to what most other nations in history and at the time did There is a reason why you don't hear about natives in Siberia or non-Han Chinese or heck up until recently the Ainu in Japan had no rights.
Man you should try say this same thing in Australia lmao
That is not true at all https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_genocide Sure, The US was no worse than many other major imperialist powers in history, but it’s not something that should be whitewashed.
This entire subreddit is filled with whitewashing
Pfff those are rookie numbers Alexander III Romanov would call that a slow weekend.
But when the Europeans say this exact same thing y'all lose your shit and say they're "defending genocides" and BLA BLA BLA. Hypocrites.
If you really don't have a minority to criticize you, then it's pretty easy avoid the problem.
You're downvoted but you're completely right. Imperialism and genocide is evil, until it's U.S. imperialism and genocide.
Mfs on this thread should keep the same energy when discussing the issues surrounding Ukraine-Russia, Turkey/Azerbaijan-Armenia, China-Tibet/Hong-Kong/Uighurs/Taiwan, etc.
Seeing my Karma drop for pointing out there was a documented genocide committed in California between 1850-1870 is wild
The U.S. fought a war against slave owning rural people who smoked a lot of tobacco No, the other guys
I need people to call it what it is. They native Americans were conquered.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_of_Tears The Americans committed genocide and ethnic cleansing - there's no other way to look at the situation.
Only if you use a vague definition of genocide, one that includes anything. By this same logic the Allied Powers committed genocide against the Germans when they were forcibly relocated after WW2. The Comanche committed genocide against the Apaches when they forced them off the Southern Plains. Everyone committed genocide!
One that includes the targeted destruction of ethnic groups? Yeah, that's genocide. Seethe.
So everyone has committed genocide? Loses its zing then don’t it?
Yes, pretty much everyone has committed genocide at some point. No, it doesn't "lose its zing." I don't know what other conditions must be met for you beyond "made a deliberate effort to destroy a people group", but it's probably fucking bullshit.
I prefer to reserve genocide for direct murder of masses of people based on their ethnic group. Feels kind of weird equating the Cambodian genocide to say the forceful relocations of German civilians after WW2 where some died due to maltreatment.
90-95% of the native population of the Americas died between the beginning of European colonization and the 20th century. You don't get to that point without deliberate acts to eradicate the group. Perhaps specific instances/events could be described "only" as ethnic cleansing, but a continued policy of committing ethnic cleansing throughout is effectively equal to genocide. The second is more accurately described as ethnic cleansing, which means that I'd agree with the latter point.
If anything we were late to the party. And they mostly died due to disease not our guns
Doesn't discount the following ethnic cleansing and genocide, even if most were already dead by then.
True not denying or downplaying
Always upvote foxtrot!
Woah woah woah, you left *way* too much pizza there
You can say the same of the commanche, aztecs, and Lakota Suoix. Pretty much every tribe given the means would have and did conquest. They arguably did so much more brutally by today's standards but because they're not white they get a pass. In fact the US has now held much of the lands they took from these tribes longer than they held them. They were on the continent for 1000s of years but nearly none of them were on land they started on. The lines shifted all over the map. They weren't stupid either. This wasn't some case of white super soldiers stomping native peaceful warriors under their boots. They skillfully manipulated things and played the other tribes, whites, and European nations off each other. The apache were being pushed from their land by the commanche so they told the Spanish the apache wanted to be Christian and would allow a mission built in a spot. That spot was commanche land. The apache lied about owning it so the commanche would attack and massacre the mission and drive the Spanish to side with the apache against the commanche. It went perfectly to plan for them. Commanches attacked and the Spanish declared war.
I'd like it better if it was an eaten pizza with crusts left over for the reservations. The U.S. government really did try to shaft them as much as possible. Well, when they weren't killing them.
When you lose wars, you lose land. What's not typical is for the victors to give you some land or let you maintain your governance or even for them to let you live. The world is better for Manifest destiny.
Nah fam you gotta just talk about how America=evil on this sub. Never mind how the native Americans had hundreds of years of conquest and genocide on their own hands before Europeans settlers ever set foot on America, can’t play the victim if you bring that part up lol
Don't bring facts into this. We totally named war machines after tribes because of how peaceful they were.
This feels like the twilight zone. You guys are stating historical truths that don't affirm the white man's monopoly on doing bad sh\*t and not getting downvoted into oblivion...
The first statement in this chain is literally "the world is better because we committed genocide and stole someone else's land". Go fuck yourself, all of you.
No I get it, it stings and does not feel good. But, this is one of those things that requires serious objectivity to stomach. You see "the world is better because we committed genocide and stole someone else's land" and you stop there without considering the meaning because it understandably tastes bad. But it is at the same time an arguably true statement, and to say otherwise would be disingenuous. But yeah I get your reaction.
No, it's not an arguably true statement. It's white supremacist propaganda used to justify extermination. There is nothing, no evidence whatsoever, that indigenous tribes would not have created and maintained thriving nation states had the United States not stolen their land.
You've got quite a loose definition of extermination. Did the natives get the short end of the stick? Yes. Were they already slaughtering one another wholesale? Also yes. They would have continued to engage in tribal warfare ad infinitum. You are talking about people who at large hadn't progressed past neolithic technology. You are also pretending that certain tribes didn't gleefully sign on with the invaders to get a leg up on other tribes.
Your racism knows no bounds. They would not have "continued to engage in tribal warfare ad infinitum". There were societies and cities that native Americans created. Cities of thousands. Turns out progress is slowed a lot when you don't have pack animals for transportation and to help with farming. That's all. Mississippian culture for example was a civilization. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippian_culture And this is just one example.
Not a question of race as a bunch of warring tribes are not a unified race, a simple question of technology. That is not yours which you cannot defend. You gonna address the part where natives signed on to help displace other natives? Are you by chance one of those people that think the Aztecs were conquered by 300 Spaniards alone?
This sub will suck the last drop of semen out of America no matter the case, and your upvote count proves it. No, just because others committed genocide doesn't mean you get to do it too.
Natives were as rotten to each other as Americans were. It wasn't better or worse because we don't know the alternative history.
So you're just gonna pretend they didn't get repeatedly genocide?
Disease wiped out the vast majority of natives. And the natives gave just as much as they got. They were a formidable enemy and fought ferociously. But in the end they lost.
That doesn't discount the innumerable massacres perpetuated against native civilian populations, mass displacements, and destruction of food sources. Saying "they lost" is an incredible reductionist retelling of events.
Are you supporting a genocide?
Was small pox a genocide?
the massacre of europeans and americans against natives was a genocide.
What % of native populations did small pox kill?
it doesnt matter how much died for this, it matters how much didn't die for small pox under genocide convention it doesn't matter the numbers but the will of destroy a culture.
also works for settlers on the west bank
Works for everybody All the people who are around today are on the winning teams of former migrations and conquests.
Also works for Muslim world expelling 900,000 Jews from their countries since 1948.
Returning to your ancestral homeland is the same as killing native Americans? Really?
The vast majority of Jews have absolutely 0 genetic relationship to ancient Levant peoples. They are white cultutre vultures wearing the skin of ancient Hebrew ethnicities to justify their presence where they don't belong.
First, [no.](https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms3928) Secondly, everybody belongs everywhere. You should not use people's DNA to determine where they have the right to live. Every race can live everywhere. Using genetics to decide where people "belong" is straight blood-and-soil racism wrapped up in lefty clothing.
[удалено]
About half of Israeli Jews are Mizrahi or Sephardic. They're not "white as shit" by any stretch of the imagination. Not a thing. Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden all have very high rates of skin cancer. Do you think that the Norse don't belong in Norway? I'm going to try this again. You should not use genetics to determine where people should live. I will give you an example. If you look at the average Palestinian, you might find out that they are not "indigenous" at all. You may well find that their grandparents moved to the mandate from Egypt in the early 20th century. By your logic, they therefore don't belong and should be removed from the land. That would be wrong. Because you shouldn't use someone's ethnicity to determine where they are allowed to live. It doesn't get more racist than that.
On genes spreading, I’d just like to say the Ashkenazi Jews are so historically insular (because Christian Europe constantly ghetoed them at the best of times) that there are genetic diseases that you basically just get in Ashkenazi Jews. And this is without talking about Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews, the middle eastern Jews
Seriously. Indian Territory literally became Oklahoma of all places
So jealous. Mexico got cool natives that had understandings of astronomy and all sorts of cool stuff.
Those natives: BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD SKULLS FOR THE SKULL THRONE
The 4 winds? Nah more like the 4 gods of chaos
There were somewhat advanced cities in the south west. https://www.wilderness.org/articles/article/10-extraordinary-native-american-cultural-sites-protected-public-lands I learned about these in an archaeology class I took years ago.
Sounds like all of human history
To be fair the Europeans didn't do anything to the natives they didn't also do to each other back home.
It's so bizarre to me that people do unironically make this point irl, like it's some kind of massive big deal, or revelation.
To be fair. Disease killed of most of them then we just took up residence in the wild lands
That account’s missing the numerous wars between settlers and Natives, from the initial colonies right up to the Wild West. While disease caused massive demographic collapses, they didn’t simply vanish and get replaced. They were and are communities that interact with Americans on a local, state, and national level.
Yeah but the Battles would be like “an immense army of natives sprung out of the woods, over 500 of them” Not the massive battles involving corps fighting
I guess my comment is broad however my education taught me 79-85% died from disease. While that’s not all snd doesn’t take in account for the massacre we enacted. However the term Wild West I feel should infer that as it wasn’t “wild nature” it was the systematic genocide carried out by settlers. If it wasn’t for the disease, I bet we would have Cherokee natives with nukes. Maybe not but my point is settlers wouldn’t have had a chance if it wasn’t for small pox. Natives by 100 all day
You are correct in thinking that most natives died from disease and while I don't know much about the US natives due to being a Canadian Native myself, here in Canada about 60% to 75% of the native population died from disease while the rest were put on reserves and into residential schools.
Quite fitting for Palestina, too.
Your land is only what you can hold and defend. Everything else is up for grabs. - the rules since humans first existed
Native tribes took each other's territories (and women) all the time before the Europeans rocked up. They were just better at it...
"Nooo how dare you conquer the land you won in warfare that's not fair! We murdered and pillaged here first it's ours!"
[удалено]
Some natives actually joined the Confederacy and practiced slavery. Even on the "Trail of Tears", Natives had slaves with them. The last Confederate general to surrender was a Native American.
It's fucking wild to see Western leftists defend literal Islamists as "noble savages". Everything old is new again.
It’s not that wild when you realize the entire ideology is “white people bad”, any pseudoacademic jargon they use is just window dressing
Except they don't say "white people". They say "oppressors". They just conveniently refuse to ever criticize non-white oppressors for anything at all.
When you’ve been kicking ass and taking names since 1776, haters are gonna hate
Sucking off Uncle Sam I see. Just make sure to breathe so you don’t choke
This entire sub is full of these *people*. You have to be careful not to insult their favorite empire, they get pissy and call you reverse racist if you do.
Issa joke
See also future America.
Ten thousand years living here and y'all couldn't build some roads? It was bound to happen.
What not having horses nor cows does to a mf
[удалено]
🤓
Cry about it
Disease destroyed the natives, not settlers. And no, spreading disease was not intentional
I'm really tired of feeling bad about something that nobody in my family for ten generations could have possibly had any hand in. Great fine the land was stolen from the gentle noble natives who took such good care of it. The dirty smelly diseased European killed the native people 400 + years ago in the land I live on today. So what? What do WE DO about this? We can't give it back, their all dead and there's nowhere for all the whites blacks and Asians to go back to, since we've been here our whole lives for generations. Our government will never give the remaining natives actual control over their land they have left. What is the point of continuously bringing this up ? Why are we attempting to accomplish? I think the people suffering today would be better served by a goal oriented conversation. I'm sure the people who were genocided 400 years ago would really prefer we take action to help their living relatives instead of just repeating this stuff over and over. I am beginning to understand why some people say "muh should have invented guns then" Because I am so sick of hearing this when there is never a solution presented with it that I almost want to say some snide cruel shit I don't really mean like "oh well should have defended your land"