How’s the genocide of a whole continent “average history”?
The magnitude of destruction in the Americas is not common and this downplay of a continent-wide genocide is annoying.
Did they? I was under the impression they came in, did a conquer, and basically left with the conquered understanding that the horde’d be back for their tribute.
Because you’re lumping in the unavoidable disease transfer of first contact with intentional conquest and violence. Take away that, which was going to happen whenever any Afro-Eurasian community first interacted with people from the americas, and you get a very comparable situation to many things throughout history.
The genocide didn’t happen solely after the first contact, the massacre of natives lasted centuries. Many nations were wiped out in the XIX century.
And a quote for you
Proponents of the default position emphasize attrition by disease despite other causes equally deadly, if not more so. In doing so they refuse to accept that the colonization of America was genocidal by plan, not simply the tragic fate of populations lacking immunity to disease.
Did disease not account for the vast majority of death? Even still, I never discounted the brutal conquest that was engaged in. My point is that Europeans aren’t special for brutal conquests. Imperial Japan is a prime example this.
You’re also treating a bunch of competing individuals as a hive mind with a coherent plan. I find that “grand scheming entity” kind of narrative to be just as naive as the people buying into racist narratives. It doesn’t make sense when it’s Jewish people and they’re a smaller demographic than “Western European”.
How’s the genocide of a whole continent “average history”? The magnitude of destruction in the Americas is not common and this downplay of a continent-wide genocide is annoying.
Because there are other examples of continent wide genocide.
Humans are the fucking worst and it isn’t unique to one area
The Mongols genocided two continents and a sub continent.
Did they? I was under the impression they came in, did a conquer, and basically left with the conquered understanding that the horde’d be back for their tribute.
Because you’re lumping in the unavoidable disease transfer of first contact with intentional conquest and violence. Take away that, which was going to happen whenever any Afro-Eurasian community first interacted with people from the americas, and you get a very comparable situation to many things throughout history.
The genocide didn’t happen solely after the first contact, the massacre of natives lasted centuries. Many nations were wiped out in the XIX century.
And a quote for you
Professor Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz
Did disease not account for the vast majority of death? Even still, I never discounted the brutal conquest that was engaged in. My point is that Europeans aren’t special for brutal conquests. Imperial Japan is a prime example this.
You’re also treating a bunch of competing individuals as a hive mind with a coherent plan. I find that “grand scheming entity” kind of narrative to be just as naive as the people buying into racist narratives. It doesn’t make sense when it’s Jewish people and they’re a smaller demographic than “Western European”.
Look, the reality is that disease did kill the majority of natives.
The genocide after that is not made any less horrible by that reality, but it was made POSSIBLE because of it.
If European settlers had to deal with the full original population, things would have been VERY different.
It wasn’t just disease that killed them. See: the Trail of Tears
I never said it was the only thing so I wouldn’t disagree with you on that.