Elections On Columbus Day Kamala Harris Said European explorers ushered in a wave of devastation, violence, stealing land, and widespread disease

[Natural Order]

Well it wasn’t just the germs, it was also the forcible displacement of those people, taking of their land, and enslaving them that contributed.

I don’t think saying, “golly, we didn’t mean to kill quite that many of you” helps much.

I know, but it's important that we learn to speak honestly and clearly. The phoniness is part of the problem if you get right into it.

So like noted to @Sinister, your definition of displacement, land left and enslavement being all attributes to these people long before white man arrived.....leaves us.....where exactly?

 

[panamaican]

They did, but I remember reading a study that stated that those isolated incidents didn't have a massive impact on millions of Natives over all of the Americas. No idea if I could find it as it was a long time ago. It would make sense though that some diseased blankets given out in Delaware to one tribe didn't really have an impact on people hundreds of miles away.

The example provided is not meant to reflect the entirety of the instances throughout history. Someone asked if such things were done intentionally, I provided a credible source that they were. If someone wanted an encyclopedic breakdown of all such instances, that would be an entirely different thing.

If I say dogs and cats are animals, it does not mean that only dogs and cats are animals.

 

[Goutfather]

good movie, and a rare piece of media that dares pierce the false narrative that natives were in peaceful harmony before the white man arrived, even if it was going for the usual western-style guilt trip. rip nelson miles.

 

[Natural Order]

The example provided is not meant to reflect the entirety of the instances throughout history. Someone asked if such things were done intentionally, I provided a credible source that they were. If someone wanted an encyclopedic breakdown of all such instances, that would be an entirely different thing.

If I say dogs and cats are animals, it does not mean that only dogs and cats are animals.

Unfortunately you waddled in here under the pretext that the majority came from intentional germ warfare, and that's just simply nonsense.

 

[Sinister]

It's an ugly piece of logic they love to hand wave.


Well we defined a few hundred years later (and it continues to change, no?), so colour me a bit skeptical.

I suppose by your very own definition we can assume various tribes were committing genocide against other tribes on the land, yes? History is brutal, everywhere.

I've noticed you've been unwilling to take a stab at my request for a starting date we can begin to approach global reparations. Or shall we just whine for another few hundred years?

No, this is a mischaracterization that has Eurocentric roots, and I dismantled it more thoroughly in the thread where we discussed Native slavery, which is another aspect of mischaracterization. Natives absolutely were not wiping entire tribes off the map. Most tribes, even the most brutal ones, had customs that were specifically designed to actually preserve the futures of weaker ones, such as not killing the children. The extinction of entire tribes most egregiously took place after the mass migration of Europeans, prior to that it was rare. Natives also didn't have schools built where religious fanatics beat the culture out of each other's abducted children, who murdered ones that didnt comply.

The trope of suggesting that Natives killed each other and thus, the genocide of them was excusable is just another aspect of the same old "heathen barbarians" nonsense that was used back then.

 

[Domitian]

The example provided is not meant to reflect the entirety of the instances throughout history. Someone asked if such things were done intentionally, I provided a credible source that they were. If someone wanted an encyclopedic breakdown of all such instances, that would be an entirely different thing.

If I say dogs and cats are animals, it does not mean that only dogs and cats are animals.

Well sure they definitely did use the tactic, but my comment was geared towards the efficacy of it. The impact was most likely negligible and the majority of deaths due to disease were unintentional. I wasn't sure if you were aware.

 

[panamaican]

No, that isn't where the majority of disease deaths came from. It spread naturally and was weaponized later to further the effects.

As this constitutes as mentioned, upwards of 90% of indigenous mortality both in North and South America, it should be a prevalent point when discussing this never-ending hogwash.

If someone introduces an infectious disease into a community that did not have that disease prior and thus had no immunities from it, it's entirely reasonable to attach those subsequent deaths to the original introduction of the infectious disease. This is a large part of why people say that we should be careful when engaging communities that have not been exposed to us previously, we carry disease that they are not biologically prepared to defend and the end result will be significantly worse because of it.

That settlers did not understand the lack of antibodies or immunities in native populations doesn't change that they intentionally introduced virus with the goal of that virus killing off parts of the population. Unexpected and outsized success does not alter the intention.

If I throw a bomb into a car because I think no one is there and then, after the explosion, we find out that there were 2 little kids playing next to the car and died from the force of the blast...I'm still responsible for those deaths. No one in their right mind would say that it's hogwash to attribute those deaths to my intentional actions.

 

[Osculater]

you're saying disease was intentionally spread?

First is wasn't but later it was

 

[Natural Order]

No, this is a mischaracterization that has Eurocentric roots, and I dismantled it more thoroughly in the thread where we discussed Native slavery, which is another aspect of mischaracterization. Natives absolutely were not wiping entire tribes off the map. Most tribes, even the most brutal ones, had customs that were specifically designed to actually preserve the futures of weaker ones, such as not killing the children. The extinction of entire tribes most egregiously took place after the mass migration of Europeans, prior to that it was rare. Natives also didn't have schools built where religious fanatics beat the culture out of each other's abducted children, who murdered ones that didnt comply.

The trope of suggesting that Natives killed each other and thus, the genocide of them was excusable is just another aspect of the same old "heathen barbarians" nonsense that was used back then.

Listen, I'm well aware of all of the brutality, and I'm not condoning any of it. The entirety of our history is beyond absurd, but if we're going to live in this theatre we should make sure everybody is engaged in the same play.

Why do you believe that the obvious unfairness of the entirety of everything in front of you is something to be overcome?

 

[Natural Order]

If someone introduces an infectious disease into a community that did not have that disease prior and thus had no immunities from it, it's entirely reasonable to attach those subsequent deaths to the original introduction of the infectious disease. This is a large part of why people say that we should be careful when engaging communities that have not been exposed to us previously, we carry disease that they are not biologically prepared to defend and the end result will be significantly worse because of it.

That settlers did not understand the lack of antibodies or immunities in native populations doesn't change that they intentionally introduced virus with the goal of that virus killing off parts of the population. Unexpected and outsized success does not alter the intention.

If I throw a bomb into a car because I think no one is there and then, after the explosion, we find out that there were 2 little kids playing next to the car and died from the force of the blast...I'm still responsible for those deaths. No one in their right mind would say that it's hogwash to attribute those deaths to my intentional actions.

You must be off your meds or something mate. Not sure who you think you're talking to.

 

[Limbo Pete]

Nobody omits that. Disease was a large part of the genocide of the Native peoples.

If anyone actually gives a shit about how abjectly inhuman the US treated Natives, just on a legal basis, read the Marshall Trilogy. From the outset, natives couldn't hold true fee simple property rights to lands they lived on for millenia since they were savages and not "christian". The good Ole Discovery Doctrine.

"The exclusion of of all other Europeans necessarily gave to the nation making the discovery the sole right of acquiring lands from the natives and establishing settlements upon it."

All the European imperialists were Christian and the Doctrine applied to only non Christians.

Johnson v McIntosh
Worcester v Georgia
Cherokee v Georgia

For persons who claim we need to "honor" our history, do yourselves a favor and read some actual history from the SCOTUS.

This is important stuff because the consequences of settler/colonial doctrine are shaping the interpretation and formation of Indian law today. We have a Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Indian Education, Indian health, gaming, on and on and on. And all those SC decisions, all those Acts, all those treaties (or lack thereof) are the basis for actual contemporaneous decisions (which often suck)

 

[Possum Jenkins]

No, this is a mischaracterization that has Eurocentric roots, and I dismantled it more thoroughly in the thread where we discussed Native slavery, which is another aspect of mischaracterization. Natives absolutely were not wiping entire tribes off the map. Most tribes, even the most brutal ones, had customs that were specifically designed to actually preserve the futures of weaker ones, such as not killing the children. The extinction of entire tribes most egregiously took place after the mass migration of Europeans, prior to that it was rare. Natives also didn't have schools built where religious fanatics beat the culture out of each other's abducted children, who murdered ones that didnt comply.

The trope of suggesting that Natives killed each other and thus, the genocide of them was excusable is just another aspect of the same old "heathen barbarians" nonsense that was used back then.

Yeah, there were dozens of different Native American groups in the Americas when the Europeans arrived. To say that "they" did one thing or another is inaccurate.

At the same time, there are some trends. Some were warlike, others much less so. There is lots of evidence to suggest that by and large, North American natives were not very warlike because many were nomadic or small-scale farmers. Large-scale warfare takes place in state systems and only the Incas (South America) and Aztecs (Mesoamerica) had that in 1492.

War among the indigenous North Americans had a sport-like quality and involved enemy capture more than straight killings. Europeans absolutely overwhelmed them with their capacity for killing and conquering. They had it down to a science by that point. All Eurasian societies did, to be fair.

 

[avenue94]

you're saying disease was intentionally spread?

They were at times, but diseases spread far worse in populations battling famine, warfare, etc. Which the settlers contributed to, unintentionally and intentionally

 

[avenue94]

here's a couple pieces that again paint a different picture of columbus than you're presenting as fact.

Opinion | The real Columbus: There’s hard evidence that the modern recast of the great explorer is a myth

Christopher Columbus has become a controversial figure, with a modern narrative casting him as a greedy, murderous brute. A thought-provoking and compelling reappraisal of Columbus and his legacy…

riverheadlocal.com

Countering the critics - Fra Noi

Columbus’ detractors would have us believe that he was a genocidal slave trader who tyrannized nativ

franoi.com

and the point is, maybe it's not as black and white, 500 years later, as people want to present it as. those telling the story craft it to fit their own bias / intended narrative.

and the holiday isn't because he was a better guy than henry vii

That you are posting crappy writing as opposed to peer reviewed research or at least respected experts in the field is telling. Off the bat this is aboslutely ludicorous: " Delaney proves the key component of this plan: goods from Europe would earn the gold to set up a two-front Crusade, from the east with paid armies from China as well as the west, to restore Jerusalem as a Christian city in time for the Apocalypse."

Columbus frequently fought with his sponsors over his cut of the New World and profits, given his corporation was effectively set up like a VC fund. This was entirely the reason for most of his financial backers, they were putting up seed money to develop a market.

Let's make this simple: Of the crimes Columbus was accused of and imprisoned for, which do you find credible? Any? some? Be specific, instead of constantly trying to talk about other aspects of his life.

what constitutional amendment?

and again, we're still trying to make their separate population closer to the average american instead of not keeping them separate. it's hard to understand why. should it be this way in perpetuity?

Article Section 8, Clause 3 is what establishes Native Americans as foreign nations. That's the first principal you'd have to amend if you wanted to not have Native Americans be "separate."

And who's saying we shouldn't make them closer to the average american? Certainly not me. That's why I noted that reservations need a lot more support.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

I like these threads. Colonizers pride (never dies)

 

[rikibobby]

I'm sure the native Americans wish they had done a better job enforcing their borders.

When the europeans arrived, the natives still hadn't figured out the wheel yet. They were still dragging everything around.

 

[kflo]

That you are posting crappy writing as opposed to peer reviewed research or at least respected experts in the field is telling. Off the bat this is aboslutely ludicorous: " Delaney proves the key component of this plan: goods from Europe would earn the gold to set up a two-front Crusade, from the east with paid armies from China as well as the west, to restore Jerusalem as a Christian city in time for the Apocalypse."

Columbus frequently fought with his sponsors over his cut of the New World and profits, given his corporation was effectively set up like a VC fund. This was entirely the reason for most of his financial backers, they were putting up seed money to develop a market.

Let's make this simple: Of the crimes Columbus was accused of and imprisoned for, which do you find credible? Any? some? Be specific, instead of constantly trying to talk about other aspects of his life.

So you’re dismissing both links completely out of hand? There are more…with similar themes.

Peer reviewed research? Is this a scientific paper?

Article Section 8, Clause 3 is what establishes Native Americans as foreign nations. That's the first principal you'd have to amend if you wanted to not have Native Americans be "separate."

I’m not sure that’s actually true in practice. But if it were, still worth assessing.

And who's saying we shouldn't make them closer to the average american? Certainly not me. That's why I noted that reservations need a lot more support.

My point was that why try to make them closer while keeping them separate, and not just eliminate the “separate” and let closer happen naturally.

 

[Aegon Spengler]

This is a great lecture

He gets into detail on the size of the North American population before the arrival of Europeans, and Aztec/Maya culture and wars.

He talks about human sacrifice, cannibalism, the diseases that wiped out indigenous people and the way Europeans at the time reacted to the fact that their contact had wiped out 90% of the local population in South America. He claims Europeans killed more people than they intended too.

 

[jefferz]

When the europeans arrived, the natives still hadn't figured out the wheel yet. They were still dragging everything around.

There was no large animals in the New World to tow something that had wheels.

 

[ermac88]

On Columbus Day Kamala Harris declared that Euporean explorers brought in devastation, and violence, stole land and brought widespread disease

This was such a ridiculous statement from a clown presidential candidate.
Let alone the part of violence comment that Harris stated.

The way I learned in it in elementary school , the inj, the natives brought corn and turkey for thanksgiving and prayed to christ god

They were happy!