What if Columbus was the first...?

[Ashmoria]

the aztecs are their own people. their moral failings really dont reflect on anyone but themselves.

The Aztecs ran a tribute empire on the backs of their neighbours. That's how the small Spanish force managed to get so many allies.

I'm not backing the oafish "They were mean so we were doing the right thing by invading them" argument, just saying.

Thats not my argument either. Only a moron would save the Aztecs were invaded to liberate the Tlaxcalans. I'm saying there is no moral highground to be fought over. Wars happen, the victors conquer and the defeated are vanquished. No sense crying over it and blaming people.

people are people and as such are a mix of good and bad. native americans are as capable of evil as europeans are; that is part of being human.

but there is no sense pretending that there is a moral equivalence between those fighting for their homes and those fighting to take those homes.

I'll play ball with this idea. Can you prove to me that the natives never attacked the homes of colonists or settler and/or killed women and children?

it doesnt matter. those women and children, those settlers, those colonists built their homes ON NATIVE LAND.

yes from time to time the natives misidentified those who had done them wrong and attacked isolated cabins with whatever white people happened to be living in them.

but every one of those white people were invaders taking indian lands for their own profits.

if you can find me an incident of indians who attacked white people with no provocation but their own greed for whatever the white people had, we can talk....

well no we cant because my point is that all people are good and bad. that means that of course native americans do bad things. they are human like the rest of us. only a fool would suggest that the natives who came into contact with the early european conquerors were incapable of immoral behavior of whatever kind.

and my further point is that it will never be RIGHT for anyone to steal from and enslave others. whatever wrong natives may have done at whatever time cannot balance out the wrong that was done to them from the first day that columbus landed in the new world.

[Southern Patriots]

Thats sort of my point. Neither side is innocent, so there is no point lamenting the loss of one or condemning the victory of the other.

Not really, your example is the Aztecs, mine represents, well... pretty much all of Europe... Most of the native tribes did not engage in human sacrifice, on the flips side it would be hard to find a European Nation in that time frame who did NOT engage in religious persecution and the execution of heretics and the like.

The French, Dutch, and Swedish come to mind as not being overly violent with the natives, and dealing with them in a friendly fashion. And if you claim one incident (the Aztecs) does not condemn a whole group, you shouldn't pass a picture of Jews being hung as the actions of all Europeans on all natives.

I wasn't referring to the treatment of natives by Europeans. I was referring of blood spilled by Europeans, including with one another.

And the natives warred with each other and spilled each other's blood. Hence neither side being innocent, but both being human.

[Tokos]

it doesnt matter. those women and children, those settlers, those colonists built their homes ON NATIVE LAND.

yes from time to time the natives misidentified those who had done them wrong and attacked isolated cabins with whatever white people happened to be living in them.

but every one of those white people were invaders taking indian lands for their own profits

Would you be saying this if some pissed off white guy shot a bunch of Mexican illegal immigrants?

[Novikov]

the aztecs are their own people. their moral failings really dont reflect on anyone but themselves.

The Aztecs ran a tribute empire on the backs of their neighbours. That's how the small Spanish force managed to get so many allies.

I'm not backing the oafish "They were mean so we were doing the right thing by invading them" argument, just saying.

Thats not my argument either. Only a moron would save the Aztecs were invaded to liberate the Tlaxcalans. I'm saying there is no moral highground to be fought over. Wars happen, the victors conquer and the defeated are vanquished. No sense crying over it and blaming people.

people are people and as such are a mix of good and bad. native americans are as capable of evil as europeans are; that is part of being human.

but there is no sense pretending that there is a moral equivalence between those fighting for their homes and those fighting to take those homes.

I'll play ball with this idea. Can you prove to me that the natives never attacked the homes of colonists or settler and/or killed women and children?

That's either an argument of ignorance or a tu-quo-que argument. Either way, it doesn't carry any weight.

The fact is that violence committed by both sides was morally reprehensible. Still, the greatest violence was committed by Europeans. Their superior weapons made them victorious in most encounters, and they were the first to practice such things as scalping, biological warfare, and mass genocide. Natives did attack Europeans, but by and large these were retaliatory attacks committed on a much smaller scale.

[Ashmoria]

it doesnt matter. those women and children, those settlers, those colonists built their homes ON NATIVE LAND.

yes from time to time the natives misidentified those who had done them wrong and attacked isolated cabins with whatever white people happened to be living in them.

but every one of those white people were invaders taking indian lands for their own profits

Would you be saying this if some pissed off white guy shot a bunch of Mexican illegal immigrants?

wait a minute...what? what does that have to do with what we are talking about?

it is not justified TODAY for native americans to attack "white settlers" for having stolen their homes. not that that happens.

[Tokos]

there is a difference between someone taking your home right now and having taken your great grandparents home 150 years ago.

it is not justified TODAY for native americans to attack "white settlers" for having stolen their homes. not that that happens.

I didn't mean that. I meant that since you excuse (understandably, I'll add) the attacking of unwanted settlers 200 years ago, would you excuse the same done to illegal settlers now? It is, after all, the same situation.

[Ashmoria]

there is a difference between someone taking your home right now and having taken your great grandparents home 150 years ago.

it is not justified TODAY for native americans to attack "white settlers" for having stolen their homes. not that that happens.

I didn't mean that. I meant that since you excuse (understandably, I'll add) the attacking of unwanted settlers 200 years ago, would you excuse the same done to illegal settlers now? It is, after all, the same situation.

no its not the same.

at the time violence was the only option. today we have courts to appeal to. if the indians had been able to take their case to court--even european courts so far away--and get a just hearing of their grievances they would not have been anything but wrong to kill invaders.

although its certainly justifiable to defend yourself with deadly force if your life is at stake.

[Tekania]

And the natives warred with each other and spilled each other's blood. Hence neither side being innocent, but both being human.

Not really. None of the Natives engaged in the scale of war in Europe, nor was the mindless slaughter which occurred in Europe common in European religious persecution resemble anything remotely which happened amongst the natives of the Americas.

[Southern Patriots]

the aztecs are their own people. their moral failings really dont reflect on anyone but themselves.

The Aztecs ran a tribute empire on the backs of their neighbours. That's how the small Spanish force managed to get so many allies.

I'm not backing the oafish "They were mean so we were doing the right thing by invading them" argument, just saying.

Thats not my argument either. Only a moron would save the Aztecs were invaded to liberate the Tlaxcalans. I'm saying there is no moral highground to be fought over. Wars happen, the victors conquer and the defeated are vanquished. No sense crying over it and blaming people.

people are people and as such are a mix of good and bad. native americans are as capable of evil as europeans are; that is part of being human.

but there is no sense pretending that there is a moral equivalence between those fighting for their homes and those fighting to take those homes.

I'll play ball with this idea. Can you prove to me that the natives never attacked the homes of colonists or settler and/or killed women and children?

it doesnt matter. those women and children, those settlers, those colonists built their homes ON NATIVE LAND.

yes from time to time the natives misidentified those who had done them wrong and attacked isolated cabins with whatever white people happened to be living in them.

but every one of those white people were invaders taking indian lands for their own profits.

if you can find me an incident of indians who attacked white people with no provocation but their own greed for whatever the white people had, we can talk....

well no we cant because my point is that all people are good and bad. that means that of course native americans do bad things. they are human like the rest of us. only a fool would suggest that the natives who came into contact with the early european conquerors were incapable of immoral behavior of whatever kind.

and my further point is that it will never be RIGHT for anyone to steal from and enslave others. whatever wrong natives may have done at whatever time cannot balance out the wrong that was done to them from the first day that columbus landed in the new world.

Well since the Indians didn't believe you could own land, the settlers couldn't be stealing it. If you want to argue land ownership (which is pointless) then no one owns any land because everyone took it from the people living before them. And that goes for the natives too, since they warred with each other.

http://www.virtualjamestown.org/phatmass.html
The natives even brought gifts to dissuade fears before attacking.

And there was no collective wrong done to the natives because there was no one native group. There were hundreds of tribes who warred with one another even while fighting Europeans. There is no right of the matter, because right makes might. Thats why and how we have laws and order. The natives were weaker biologically and technologically, and so they lost.

[Tekania]

http://www.virtualjamestown.org/phatmass.html
The natives even brought gifts to dissuade fears before attacking.

You'd have done better to have actually read that article.

[Ravea]

the aztecs are their own people. their moral failings really dont reflect on anyone but themselves.

The Aztecs ran a tribute empire on the backs of their neighbours. That's how the small Spanish force managed to get so many allies.

I'm not backing the oafish "They were mean so we were doing the right thing by invading them" argument, just saying.

Thats not my argument either. Only a moron would save the Aztecs were invaded to liberate the Tlaxcalans. I'm saying there is no moral highground to be fought over. Wars happen, the victors conquer and the defeated are vanquished. No sense crying over it and blaming people.

people are people and as such are a mix of good and bad. native americans are as capable of evil as europeans are; that is part of being human.

but there is no sense pretending that there is a moral equivalence between those fighting for their homes and those fighting to take those homes.

I'll play ball with this idea. Can you prove to me that the natives never attacked the homes of colonists or settler and/or killed women and children?

it doesnt matter. those women and children, those settlers, those colonists built their homes ON NATIVE LAND.

yes from time to time the natives misidentified those who had done them wrong and attacked isolated cabins with whatever white people happened to be living in them.

but every one of those white people were invaders taking indian lands for their own profits.

if you can find me an incident of indians who attacked white people with no provocation but their own greed for whatever the white people had, we can talk....

well no we cant because my point is that all people are good and bad. that means that of course native americans do bad things. they are human like the rest of us. only a fool would suggest that the natives who came into contact with the early european conquerors were incapable of immoral behavior of whatever kind.

and my further point is that it will never be RIGHT for anyone to steal from and enslave others. whatever wrong natives may have done at whatever time cannot balance out the wrong that was done to them from the first day that columbus landed in the new world.

Well since the Indians didn't believe you could own land, the settlers couldn't be stealing it. If you want to argue land ownership (which is pointless) then no one owns any land because everyone took it from the people living before them. And that goes for the natives too, since they warred with each other.

http://www.virtualjamestown.org/phatmass.html
The natives even brought gifts to dissuade fears before attacking.

And there was no collective wrong done to the natives because there was no one native group. There were hundreds of tribes who warred with one another even while fighting Europeans. There is no right of the matter, because right makes might. Thats why and how we have laws and order. The natives were weaker biologically and technologically, and so they lost.

Like the Jews, right? It makes it okay to kill them if they are weaker, yes?

[Southern Patriots]

And the natives warred with each other and spilled each other's blood. Hence neither side being innocent, but both being human.

Not really. None of the Natives engaged in the scale of war in Europe, nor was the mindless slaughter which occurred in Europe common in European religious persecution resemble anything remotely which happened amongst the natives of the Americas.

You might need to read a book on how the Aztecs, Tarascans, Incans, and Mayans fought wars and what they did to prisoners. Hint: when the Tarascans sacrificed so many people the area around the temples was said to be several inches deep in blood.

[Southern Patriots]

the aztecs are their own people. their moral failings really dont reflect on anyone but themselves.

The Aztecs ran a tribute empire on the backs of their neighbours. That's how the small Spanish force managed to get so many allies.

I'm not backing the oafish "They were mean so we were doing the right thing by invading them" argument, just saying.

Thats not my argument either. Only a moron would save the Aztecs were invaded to liberate the Tlaxcalans. I'm saying there is no moral highground to be fought over. Wars happen, the victors conquer and the defeated are vanquished. No sense crying over it and blaming people.

people are people and as such are a mix of good and bad. native americans are as capable of evil as europeans are; that is part of being human.

but there is no sense pretending that there is a moral equivalence between those fighting for their homes and those fighting to take those homes.

I'll play ball with this idea. Can you prove to me that the natives never attacked the homes of colonists or settler and/or killed women and children?

it doesnt matter. those women and children, those settlers, those colonists built their homes ON NATIVE LAND.

yes from time to time the natives misidentified those who had done them wrong and attacked isolated cabins with whatever white people happened to be living in them.

but every one of those white people were invaders taking indian lands for their own profits.

if you can find me an incident of indians who attacked white people with no provocation but their own greed for whatever the white people had, we can talk....

well no we cant because my point is that all people are good and bad. that means that of course native americans do bad things. they are human like the rest of us. only a fool would suggest that the natives who came into contact with the early european conquerors were incapable of immoral behavior of whatever kind.

and my further point is that it will never be RIGHT for anyone to steal from and enslave others. whatever wrong natives may have done at whatever time cannot balance out the wrong that was done to them from the first day that columbus landed in the new world.

Well since the Indians didn't believe you could own land, the settlers couldn't be stealing it. If you want to argue land ownership (which is pointless) then no one owns any land because everyone took it from the people living before them. And that goes for the natives too, since they warred with each other.

http://www.virtualjamestown.org/phatmass.html
The natives even brought gifts to dissuade fears before attacking.

And there was no collective wrong done to the natives because there was no one native group. There were hundreds of tribes who warred with one another even while fighting Europeans. There is no right of the matter, because right makes might. Thats why and how we have laws and order. The natives were weaker biologically and technologically, and so they lost.

Like the Jews, right? It makes it okay to kill them if they are weaker, yes?

I'm sorry the real world shocks you so much.

[Ashmoria]

Well since the Indians didn't believe you could own land, the settlers couldn't be stealing it. If you want to argue land ownership (which is pointless) then no one owns any land because everyone took it from the people living before them. And that goes for the natives too, since they warred with each other.

http://www.virtualjamestown.org/phatmass.html
The natives even brought gifts to dissuade fears before attacking.

And there was no collective wrong done to the natives because there was no one native group. There were hundreds of tribes who warred with one another even while fighting Europeans. There is no right of the matter, because right makes might. Thats why and how we have laws and order. The natives were weaker biologically and technologically, and so they lost.

land rights were thought of differently by native groups than by europeans. that doesnt mean that land was free for the taking to whoever showed up on a particular day. if that were true, the various tribes would have nothing to fight over.

well.... its easier to talk about the collective wrong done to those who were considered to be one big group by the europeans. it is more correct to talk about the wrongs done to each individual tribe by each individual european group. just as it is more correct to say "navajo" than "indian" when referring to a navajo tribal member.

might doesnt make right. that is why we have courts.

[Autumn Wind]

I'd have to go with Ashmoria.

Both sides were wrong to varying degrees. Natives were less wrong that the Europeans.

I've been tempted to sympathise with SP's "Well, that's history for you!" train of reasoning, tthough I don't think that discarding a moral compass in the evaluation of history is a particularly good idea. The concept of a just war was invented at least a thousand years ago and has long been recognized in international politics.

While I think that bleeding heart liberal types tend to go overboard with the "white man's the devil" style rhetoric, I think that callous, indifferent dismissal of historical wrongdoing is even worse.

[Ravea]

the aztecs are their own people. their moral failings really dont reflect on anyone but themselves.

The Aztecs ran a tribute empire on the backs of their neighbours. That's how the small Spanish force managed to get so many allies.

I'm not backing the oafish "They were mean so we were doing the right thing by invading them" argument, just saying.

Thats not my argument either. Only a moron would save the Aztecs were invaded to liberate the Tlaxcalans. I'm saying there is no moral highground to be fought over. Wars happen, the victors conquer and the defeated are vanquished. No sense crying over it and blaming people.

people are people and as such are a mix of good and bad. native americans are as capable of evil as europeans are; that is part of being human.

but there is no sense pretending that there is a moral equivalence between those fighting for their homes and those fighting to take those homes.

I'll play ball with this idea. Can you prove to me that the natives never attacked the homes of colonists or settler and/or killed women and children?

it doesnt matter. those women and children, those settlers, those colonists built their homes ON NATIVE LAND.

yes from time to time the natives misidentified those who had done them wrong and attacked isolated cabins with whatever white people happened to be living in them.

but every one of those white people were invaders taking indian lands for their own profits.

if you can find me an incident of indians who attacked white people with no provocation but their own greed for whatever the white people had, we can talk....

well no we cant because my point is that all people are good and bad. that means that of course native americans do bad things. they are human like the rest of us. only a fool would suggest that the natives who came into contact with the early european conquerors were incapable of immoral behavior of whatever kind.

and my further point is that it will never be RIGHT for anyone to steal from and enslave others. whatever wrong natives may have done at whatever time cannot balance out the wrong that was done to them from the first day that columbus landed in the new world.

Well since the Indians didn't believe you could own land, the settlers couldn't be stealing it. If you want to argue land ownership (which is pointless) then no one owns any land because everyone took it from the people living before them. And that goes for the natives too, since they warred with each other.

http://www.virtualjamestown.org/phatmass.html
The natives even brought gifts to dissuade fears before attacking.

And there was no collective wrong done to the natives because there was no one native group. There were hundreds of tribes who warred with one another even while fighting Europeans. There is no right of the matter, because right makes might. Thats why and how we have laws and order. The natives were weaker biologically and technologically, and so they lost.

Like the Jews, right? It makes it okay to kill them if they are weaker, yes?

I'm sorry the real world shocks you so much.

My great grandparents died in the Porajmos. I'm sorry that you think that it's okay they did.

[Tekania]

And the natives warred with each other and spilled each other's blood. Hence neither side being innocent, but both being human.

Not really. None of the Natives engaged in the scale of war in Europe, nor was the mindless slaughter which occurred in Europe common in European religious persecution resemble anything remotely which happened amongst the natives of the Americas.

You might need to read a book on how the Aztecs, Tarascans, Incans, and Mayans fought wars and what they did to prisoners. Hint: when the Tarascans sacrificed so many people the area around the temples was said to be several inches deep in blood.

Mayans didn't exist at the time, might as well be including the Macedonian Empire as part of Columbian period Europe; they were replaced by the Incas and Aztecs long before any European ever set foot on any part of American soil. Tarascan was a small empire in constant battle with Aztecs, and was almost totally wiped out, as well as being subject to Catholic Inquisitors; where much of the information we have comes from (not very reliable)... Needless to say, this is only a small region of the Continent as a small minority of the Native tribes of the Americas.

[Divair]

Vikings would have colonized the whole of Canada, gotten bored without war, return to Europe with a giant population and new resources, and took over the world..



Hey, this is a "what if" question... And it is actually possible if there were no natives. No one to stop them from taking all that gold, ferrying to to Europe, selling it, buying weapons, the population continues to grow wildly from families spreading out and no wars to stabilize growth, and eventually they come back with a giant army to take over Europe.

[Tokos]

Vikings would have colonized the whole of Canada, gotten bored without war, return to Europe with a giant population and new resources, and took over the world..



Hey, this is a "what if" question... And it is actually possible if there were no natives. No one to stop them from taking all that gold, ferrying to to Europe, selling it, buying weapons, the population continues to grow wildly from families spreading out and no wars to stabilize growth, and eventually they come back with a giant army to take over Europe.

I wonder if "no natives" allows for the possibility of Siberians crossing the Bering strait and colonising Alaska (as presumably happened thousands and thousands of years ago) at the same time as Columbus arriving in Hispaniola.

Now that would be interesting. Two peoples swallowing up the continent from different ends.

[Kantria]

Vikings would have colonized the whole of Canada, gotten bored without war, return to Europe with a giant population and new resources, and took over the world..



Hey, this is a "what if" question... And it is actually possible if there were no natives. No one to stop them from taking all that gold, ferrying to to Europe, selling it, buying weapons, the population continues to grow wildly from families spreading out and no wars to stabilize growth, and eventually they come back with a giant army to take over Europe.

I wonder if "no natives" allows for the possibility of Siberians crossing the Bering strait and colonising Alaska (as presumably happened thousands and thousands of years ago) at the same time as Columbus arriving in Hispaniola.

Now that would be interesting. Two peoples swallowing up the continent from different ends.

This needs to be the scenario in the next Total War game. Screw history; they get stuff wrong anyway. It's time to make shit up!

[Ashmoria]

I'd have to go with Ashmoria.

Both sides were wrong to varying degrees. Natives were less wrong that the Europeans.

I've been tempted to sympathise with SP's "Well, that's history for you!" train of reasoning, tthough I don't think that discarding a moral compass in the evaluation of history is a particularly good idea. The concept of a just war was invented at least a thousand years ago and has long been recognized in international politics.

While I think that bleeding heart liberal types tend to go overboard with the "white man's the devil" style rhetoric, I think that callous, indifferent dismissal of historical wrongdoing is even worse.

aye

its wrong to suppose that white people/europeans are a special kind of evil. they are not more immorally inclined than any other slice of humanity.

that still doesnt excuse the original conquerors of having done very bad things.

[Maurepas]

Africans would be imported a bit sooner, Jackson has a few less fights on his hands, Plymouth starves, history goes on as-is...

[Free Soviets]

Africans would be imported a bit sooner, Jackson has a few less fights on his hands, Plymouth starves, history goes on as-is...

with mammoths. this is the important part.

[Tekania]

Africans would be imported a bit sooner, Jackson has a few less fights on his hands, Plymouth starves, history goes on as-is...

Not totally as is... with the Puritans (Pilgrims) having starved at Plymouth, there would have been far more religious liberties in the early colonies.

[Niur]

Tacos= New Mexico, my friend. that be white man food.

Its based on mexican food, and requires corn.