Recession Risk As Britain Reels From...
News1 min ago
The Other Side Of The White Man's Suppression Of The Native American?
57 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
"In those far off days of discovery and exploration, the white man when finding a 'new' land he would not have set out immediately to slaughter anyone he came across just for the fun of it."
Absolutely correct.
But let's acknowledge that some great 'disservice' was done to Native Americas through western expansion. No good will come of just presenting incomers as being (no pun intended) 'whiter than white'.
European expansion can and did bring benefits to indigenous populations...it can also decimate them - Aborigines in Australia for instance, whose population was reduced by 90% through diseases introduced by settlers.
So, perhaps we should take a balanced look at history and not try to gloss over things that might not support our own political ideology. It seems that the Daily Mail is criticizing Mr Depp for something that is quite common to all of us.
Absolutely correct.
But let's acknowledge that some great 'disservice' was done to Native Americas through western expansion. No good will come of just presenting incomers as being (no pun intended) 'whiter than white'.
European expansion can and did bring benefits to indigenous populations...it can also decimate them - Aborigines in Australia for instance, whose population was reduced by 90% through diseases introduced by settlers.
So, perhaps we should take a balanced look at history and not try to gloss over things that might not support our own political ideology. It seems that the Daily Mail is criticizing Mr Depp for something that is quite common to all of us.
One can find out all of the "White man's" intentions by just reading Columbus's diary of his first voyage to the New World:
" "Many of the men I have seen have scars on their bodies, and when I made signs to them to find out how this happened, they indicated that people from other nearby islands come to San Salvador to capture them; they defend themselves the best they can. I believe that people from the mainland come here to take them as slaves. They ought to make good and skilled servants, for they repeat very quickly whatever we say to them. I think they can very easily be made Christians, for they seem to have no religion. If it pleases our Lord, I will take six of them to Your Highnesses when I depart, in order that they may learn our language... I could conquer the whole of them with 50 men, and govern them as I pleased."
The other revealing aspect, of course, of this passage is that slavery was never just White men enslaving Black -- but then most of us knew this already. But Columbus's first voyage was in 1492, and the slave trade from Africa to the New World began barely ten years later.
There was much bloodshed, from both sides, but that does not lessen the guilt of those first colonists who so quickly brought a new and deadlier form of war, and disease, and the most vile form of trade to the Americas.
" "Many of the men I have seen have scars on their bodies, and when I made signs to them to find out how this happened, they indicated that people from other nearby islands come to San Salvador to capture them; they defend themselves the best they can. I believe that people from the mainland come here to take them as slaves. They ought to make good and skilled servants, for they repeat very quickly whatever we say to them. I think they can very easily be made Christians, for they seem to have no religion. If it pleases our Lord, I will take six of them to Your Highnesses when I depart, in order that they may learn our language... I could conquer the whole of them with 50 men, and govern them as I pleased."
The other revealing aspect, of course, of this passage is that slavery was never just White men enslaving Black -- but then most of us knew this already. But Columbus's first voyage was in 1492, and the slave trade from Africa to the New World began barely ten years later.
There was much bloodshed, from both sides, but that does not lessen the guilt of those first colonists who so quickly brought a new and deadlier form of war, and disease, and the most vile form of trade to the Americas.
aog
your alignment of colonialism to modern day immigration is idiotic and quite offensive.
There is no contemporary evidence that any significant proportion of european settlers in north america did so believing they could live with and amongst the indigenous population
Just as there is no evidence that any significant proportion of modern day immigrants want to drive all the indigenous population out or wipe them out and retain no aspect of their way of life
The native population was an irrelevance in 18th and 19th century america
They were the enemy to be wiped out or relegated to an irrelevance.
The colonists were often brave, resilient and bringers of improvements but thinking that their motive was altruistic is ignorant and naive
You only have to read a little about Captain Cook or the american settlers aog to see (by their own admission) they did it to acquire and exploit lands and resources for their own advancement or to impose their own crackpot ideas as in the case of Missionaries.
It's called 'human nature'
your alignment of colonialism to modern day immigration is idiotic and quite offensive.
There is no contemporary evidence that any significant proportion of european settlers in north america did so believing they could live with and amongst the indigenous population
Just as there is no evidence that any significant proportion of modern day immigrants want to drive all the indigenous population out or wipe them out and retain no aspect of their way of life
The native population was an irrelevance in 18th and 19th century america
They were the enemy to be wiped out or relegated to an irrelevance.
The colonists were often brave, resilient and bringers of improvements but thinking that their motive was altruistic is ignorant and naive
You only have to read a little about Captain Cook or the american settlers aog to see (by their own admission) they did it to acquire and exploit lands and resources for their own advancement or to impose their own crackpot ideas as in the case of Missionaries.
It's called 'human nature'
keyplus, can you please give us an example of western people's exterminating others recently, or don't you see sometimes that like wars in Syria, Egypt, they are killing one another, with little or no help, unless they have been provided with arms by the west.. many genocides have happened in recent years, not least European and then of course Rwanda, tribe on tribe, who was responsible for that?
Kevin Costner tried to change the perception of Native Americans, and i think he succeeded, they weren't all savages, but they did have just like everywhere on the planet, tribal wars, and as they say, it is survival of the fittest. White Europeans went to the west to stake land, resources, and i doubt that anyone was going to get in their way.
The great trek west in America was due mostly to Manifest Destiny :::
http://
The native American tribes were destined to failure from the moment that the first white settlers arrived in the 16th century. We may not like the idea of it today but it would happen all over again, if the same circumstances were to exist, just as it did in Australia.
I am not making excuses for the way in which white men conquered the North American continent, just pointing the inevitableness of it.
http://
The native American tribes were destined to failure from the moment that the first white settlers arrived in the 16th century. We may not like the idea of it today but it would happen all over again, if the same circumstances were to exist, just as it did in Australia.
I am not making excuses for the way in which white men conquered the North American continent, just pointing the inevitableness of it.
////keyplus, can you please give us an example of western people's exterminating......................///
Now they do not kill, but get them killed by their own people. Rawanda or whereever, where are they getting weapons, and which countries are the biggest weapon producers and more importantly sellers? Answer this question and you will get your answer. Directly or indirectly CIA (and their allies) are behind every single incident in the world.
Now they do not kill, but get them killed by their own people. Rawanda or whereever, where are they getting weapons, and which countries are the biggest weapon producers and more importantly sellers? Answer this question and you will get your answer. Directly or indirectly CIA (and their allies) are behind every single incident in the world.
-- answer removed --
///Keyplus, regardless of your conspiracy theories, and of politics, there's no denying that Muslims are doing a pretty good job of killing their own right now.////
For a change and it may make you very proud of yourself, I agree with what you said. I also know that although Shia and Sunni Muslims have co-existed for centuries but only recently they have started killing each other more and more. I (and many Muslims) know what the reasons are behind that but one example clarifies everything at least for me. My father who is over 100 years old tells us how during the time of British rule India few “un-known” people used to throw Cow’s head in front of Hindu Temple and a Pig’s head into a Masjid. That used to start a fight between Hindu and Muslims and others ruled over them. “Divide and rule” is the name of the policy known today. But change is not far as Muslims have started to understand that due to few of their few sold out leaders they are killing each other and doing what exactly the buyers wanted their leaders to do. Struggle is there but there are always difficult times before easy times come. Muslims have started to understand that Western countries would not accept even their elected people if those elected people decide not to take dictation from the West. Hammas govt and Egypt recent govt are few examples. And Muslims are becoming aware that there are people among them who are easily bought because of where their interests are. Muslims have started understanding that if an Afghan kills 100s other Afghans then he is hailed as liberated in the West and if the same Afghan kills a couple of allied soldiers then he is called a traitor. Must admit that makes me laugh too. How easy it is to change meanings of the words.
It will take a little struggle but they would eliminate these elements. But one thing Muslim world will have to differentiate between is USA and West or Europe. Because most of the problems in the world right now are direct result of USA’s dream of controlling the world (and their resources) and other Western countries might not be happy with all what Americans are doing.
Sorry to have changed the subject. But I had to because a question was asked and it needed explanation.
For a change and it may make you very proud of yourself, I agree with what you said. I also know that although Shia and Sunni Muslims have co-existed for centuries but only recently they have started killing each other more and more. I (and many Muslims) know what the reasons are behind that but one example clarifies everything at least for me. My father who is over 100 years old tells us how during the time of British rule India few “un-known” people used to throw Cow’s head in front of Hindu Temple and a Pig’s head into a Masjid. That used to start a fight between Hindu and Muslims and others ruled over them. “Divide and rule” is the name of the policy known today. But change is not far as Muslims have started to understand that due to few of their few sold out leaders they are killing each other and doing what exactly the buyers wanted their leaders to do. Struggle is there but there are always difficult times before easy times come. Muslims have started to understand that Western countries would not accept even their elected people if those elected people decide not to take dictation from the West. Hammas govt and Egypt recent govt are few examples. And Muslims are becoming aware that there are people among them who are easily bought because of where their interests are. Muslims have started understanding that if an Afghan kills 100s other Afghans then he is hailed as liberated in the West and if the same Afghan kills a couple of allied soldiers then he is called a traitor. Must admit that makes me laugh too. How easy it is to change meanings of the words.
It will take a little struggle but they would eliminate these elements. But one thing Muslim world will have to differentiate between is USA and West or Europe. Because most of the problems in the world right now are direct result of USA’s dream of controlling the world (and their resources) and other Western countries might not be happy with all what Americans are doing.
Sorry to have changed the subject. But I had to because a question was asked and it needed explanation.
Triggerhippy – There is no point of giving anything to emmie, as I am sure she knows that all. It’s just she would never accept it. On the other hands they were just Muslims, so does not matter. Otherwise Palestine is one prime example where since 1948 Palestinians have been almost been eliminated according to this map. And we all know who is behind Israel.
http://
http://
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.