Was "muh evil muricans invaded and tooks land of peace-loving native indians" a meme ?

I'm not talking about that.

I'm talking about early English settlers who actively raped and massacred native Americans. And who could forget Columbus and the Spaniards who enslaved natives the moment they set foot on the Americas.

Commies are good at resisting Islam

No, the US was an authoritarian regime at the time and committed many atrocities.

A more interesting question is how a modern liberal democratic state full of "progressives would" handle it. Would they recognize that progress is a good thing and use some other means to expand like giving natives the same rights as US citizens and making sure the land is paid for fair and square? Or would they leave the entire continent an undeveloped preserve?

Yes, peace loving natives don't scalp one another.

What if the US just stayed within it's original borders?
Never expanded beyond the Appalachians, except a few small regions.

China tier population density

Really? Maybe there would be less immigration and population growth, since they wouldn't need to fill large territories.
Also the White US culture would remain almost entirely Anglo-Saxon.

There would still be the Irish and Italian Immigration boom, however there would be less Germans to take advantage of free land out west

Overall, I don't see it staying like that. The US needed to expand for practical reasons as well as its belief in Manifest Destiny

Peace loving indians are a meme.

Depends. Pre 17th century Indians did make an effort to coexist with the settlers, to no success.

After than several concerted efforts were made to raid and drive back the white settlers. Which only escalated the animosity and hatred of one another.

Well not until they learned that from the French.

Okay?

So Europeans did what the Natives were already doing.

Big historical whoopie do.

This desu senpai

>Pre 17th century Indians did make an effort to coexist with the settlers

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaver_Wars

Well that is more or less what happened. The "peace-loving" bit obviously varied from tribe to tribe, but even the ones that tried to be peaceful still got their shit jacked.

The only reason we still hear about it today is because we didn't just wipe them out like any other sensible territorial expansion in history. We just gave them sovereign states in our country that act as parasites on present day society. They were literally a people without a nation. No things like the Iroquois Confederacy were not nations. They were at best long term based nomadic savage heathens.

>Heathen
I honestly think that is the first time I ever heard someone say that in conversation.

90% of the natives in the Americas, were already dead by the time the Anglos arrived to stay.

spanish diseases collapsed all the complex native civilizations.

Somewhere inbetween a meme and not. To say there was absolutely no ethnically driven, intentional murder of natives is wrong, and to claim this is a minor count of people is also wrong. But, a huge amount was not intentional.

Nor were the natives totally peaceful.

Yea it is a complicated issues with different cases of everyone doing all kinds of shit good and bad but people seem to really like to simplify shit as if to make sure their personal worldview is validated or something.

Then again I am biased since I just see the world as being clusterfucks on top of clusterfucks and there is no real way of knowing where anything is going down the line.

The entire problem of settlement was caused by the fact that the U.S. government wasn't able to stop its citizens from moving around and settling where they wanted. most native tribes were decentralized and couldnt effectively control individuals either. if one indian chief agreed to peace or declared war, there was nothing stopping his followers who disagreed from joining another band.

the conflict was caused by both sides having diametrically opposed interests while also being too hard for their authorities to completely control, so they constantly went at each others' throats at the local level and broke every peace agreement their governments tried to make

the U.S. government didn't start most wars against natives, it was dragged into them largely against its will by settlers who kept starting shit with their red neighbors(and vice versa). a progressive government would have faced the same problem.

I don't see the problem. The Iroquois were trying to monopolize trade with settlers and take out their enemies at the same time. If anything, they were behaving as Europeans. The only reason war broke out between them and the settlers is because their expansion fucking spooked the English AND French.

I think it would be interesting to see some of the larger native tribes be incorporated into states.

well, we did invade and take land, but they weren't exactly the peace-loving hippies some would have you believe.

Sorta this.

Back in the day people would get conquered all the time. The Native Americans were invaded and they lost simple as that. They are just whining nowadays. You can't really blame the Euros for the whole disease thing since they were kind clueless about that kind of stuff at the time.

>"Eurabia"
>star and crescent
it's a turkic symbol that has nothing to do with arabia and the only reason it's associated with islam is because of the ottomans REEEEEEEE

>They were at best long term based nomadic savage
No don't be an idiot. See the books 1491 and 1493.

>Luxembourg
>Communist

m8 it's Europe's biggest tax haven (and also supercomfy)

Yes. If the Americans were so evil, there would be no natives left.

Nothing says peaceful like kidnapping people, scrapping their skin off with seashells, and burning them alive

>Implying there's a difference between Turks and Arabs
Sand people are sand people, user

Natives are racist they wanted the whiteys to fuck off but only pretended to accept them because whiteys had big bad guns that would wreck them.

>implying the French didn't learn it from the Indians

>for hundreds of years Frogs never scalp each other or any of their enemies
>suddenly get a wild hair up their ass and spontaneously starting taking scalps in America but ONLY in America
>clearly it was the French that introduced scalping to the New World and not the New World that introduced scalping to the French

This is what apologists for the "Noble Savage" actually believe.

It would have little impact on the actions of individuals with dreams of a piece of land to call their own. Because the US isn't expanding, the tribes could fill the same role and accept (ie. not raid) immigrants in exchange for taxes (protection money). Eventually they would adopt western technology and end up acting like the US did, including pushing out less developed tribes to the west.

Treaties were broken, civilians were targeted and those who committed crimes against natives were rarely punished, a "progressive" democracy would be less likely to do this at least reducing tensions and the brutality of the whole affair.

I think that happened in Oklahoma

It's not that clear cut. Like any group of people, there's a mix of interests involved.

Also if you consider yourself a constitutionalist or even moderately law-abiding you would not support what Andrew Jackson did, he completely ignored the courts and disregarded any rights the natives had to self-determination and self-governance. All in the name of populism, and big land owners.

in what way has the U.S. "saved the world" by killing Indians?

if anything they did nothing but cause more problems for themselves as well as everybody else by expanding westward.

the natives had a duty to rescue the poor white refugees.

any crimes the whites committed were purely the result of psychological trauma from being oppressed.

the natives weren't genocided, they learned to appreciate diversity

No, and in fact many "battles" were simply massacres. Americans would purposely bungle relations between whites and natives to gain an excuse for wiping them out.

right, just like the europeans are currently purposefully bungling negotiations with muslims pouring into stockholm and raping thousands of women, right?

so smart

Veeky Forums is the smartest board

>it wasn't morally wrong
Lets see if you can still say that in 2-4 centuries, probably not.

Natives are not white they dont give a crap about morality unless they can use it to fuck you over.

Can you stop with the dumb analogies?

can you stop with the historical revisionism? nothing you say makes sense outside of a narrative frame that europeans are evil and kill babies.

if you're gonna troll at least get good at it.

I'm not even the same guy, I'm just sick of you thinking that a completely different situation is a suitable analogy and a meaningful argument. Please, stop. Analogies are not arguments, they are argument aids to illuminate your actual point. They don't mean anything by themselves. Your sarcasm isn't an argument either.

an accusation isn't an argument either.

you can say "whitey done fucked us. he kills kids" till the cows come home. even specific incidents of whites killing indians could be slaughter or retribution in different contexts, which of course, people always strip from accounts of why whites happened to have a policy of utter retaliation.

Could you try that again except instead of replying to me you reply to the guy's original post? Maybe have something resembling a debate? I understand that this probably a new thing for you, but please try.

If the moccasin had been on the other foot and American Indians were the advanced culture, they would have just as happily wiped out primitive Europeans.

Being a violent conquering asshole isn’t unique to Europeans, (we’re just really good at it) it’s instinctual human nature and we’ve seen displayed again and again throughout history by all peoples.

there were plenty of cogent posts in front of his post he could have responded to. there were specific contexts and situations he could have articulated his response in the contexts thereof.

he didn't. he was shitposting. he just said "whitey kill da red man. das raciss n shieettttt"

but of course, you think his argument holds up, and I'm not allowed to call him out on it.

as many of the other posters mentioned, killing indians was generally done in a retaliatory context. they were "slaughters" because the indians lacked the means to fight back effectively, not because they DIDN'T fight.

the lesson that should be taken from native americans is "don't bring a knife to a gun fight."

>What if the US just stayed within it's original borders?

Never would have happened.

Nobody was going to remain in the colonies when they could look across the border and see a bazillion acres of essentially uninhabited land.

>in what way has the U.S. "saved the world" by killing Indians?

If it wasn't us, it would have eventually been the Spanish and look how that worked out...

>be a leftist
>argue that natives aren't genetically inferior
>argue that improvements in culture will fight poverty
>then argue against the adoption of a superior culture, because it's not hispanic "culture" that causes them to be dumb and impoverished
>sweating button dot jaypeg

O hillbillies on tractors ride, through amber waves of gmo grain.

You're free to move to Mexico if you'd like...

Horseshit

This is the critical failure of Western thought, the idea that it's abstractions and aberrations are normal and universal. There are plenty of instances in history where more advanced civilizations encountered far more primitive societies and nothing happened.

You're free to fuck off back to Slovakia if reality hurts.

>Was "muh evil muricans invaded and tooks land of peace-loving native indians" a meme ?

It's part of a larger misunderstanding historians and anthropologists refer to as the "Pristine Myth." The entire concept that the American Indians lived some utopian existence with nature, walked lightly on the land, used every part of the buffalo, lived in harmony with each other, etc... is all part of it. What's interesting is that it's a fairly new myth that contradicts a lot of what was already known and understood about Native American society. It's not all positive either, though 'peace-loving' may be, inability to work the land and manage agriculture paints them as primitive when we know they weren't.

It's only recently that we've become aware of just how extensively they managed the land. Early explorers and fur trappers would often write about massive tracts of burned land and open prairies, though most assumed they were natural. We know now that Indians had regular "controlled" burns for land clearance, intentionally creating grasslands for both agriculture and hunting. There's archaeological evidence that suggests they'd routinely burn down much of the Great Plains. To give an idea of the scale, the amount of natural forest covering the continent has increased steadily since European settlement to present. In Brazil "terra preta", essentially man-made fertilizer, has been found covering land twice the area of Great Britain.

Ironically, they were so effective at "slash and burn" agriculture that the abundance of rich prairie land was a primary motivation for farmers settling west.

Um I will say no but only because the nlNative Americans are put on thia pedestal and treated like they were great peace loving demigods, when they were just normal tribal people. Alot of low level warfare and getting bye with agriculture. I hate it when people treat Native Americans this one because it takes away from the narrative by making it seem childish and like a fairy tail. The truth is that is a very powerful people live next to a much weaker power there is a tendency for the weaker power to be conquered and assimilated, unless some outside force stops it.
Yes what happened to the Natives is awful but unfortunately (or fortunately depending on persepctive) it is just a part of wider trend of human history.

orly? name a few

Frogs gave land away to the Brits and American's were never there's in the first place

France's north American "colonies" was basically just them saying "hey can we trade with you guys?" and the Natives saying "sure"

eventually people just accepted them as any other imperial Euro state.

mostly yes, but not the genocide SJWs would have you believe

that's what the Spaniards did

>the amount of natural forest covering the continent has increased steadily since European settlement to present.

This is absolute nonsense. The early colonists of N.America wrote about the vast forests like the the U.S. military saw the Mekong Delta during the Vietnam War; a terrifying impenetrable green Hell that could swallow up a person in a heartbeat, never to be seen again. It was said that a squirrel could travel from the Atlantic to the Mississippi and never touch the ground.

>be prairienigger
>some krauts settle near the land you stole from some other tribe
>chimp out and scalp the men and rape the women and children to death
>do this some more
>government builds forts to stop you from chimping out
>attack them
>get BTFO
>call it a massacre
>get a reservation so you can practice your "culture" freely
>fast forward to 2016
>company legally buys land miles outside the reservation
>realixe the BIA dole will only come in at the end of the month
>all your money is already spent on liquor
>this be our sacred rivah whitey
*vandalism and rain dancing intensifies*
>get pay out from oil company

whats wrong with gmos. Really explain to me how they are in any way bad for people.

cool post. looked up the Mekong delta after

>nomadic savage heathens.

>Mississippians and Hopewells had cities and complex import-export trade networks of manufactured goods

>They were literally a people without a nation.
This has been people for the vast majority of human existance, and the nation didn't do much to improve people's lives.

natives cleared forests when it suited them like everyone else

also there is literally nothing wrong with doing so

the question is how widespead maize farming was and how much was wiped out by smallpox

> natives cleared forests when it suited them like everyone else

Mesoamerica isn’t North America. The Mayans had to deforest the land to grow enough crops to support their vastly larger and denser population, (just as European colonists later did in N.America) in addition to the Yucatan Peninsula being shitty place for farming to start with.

North American Indians on the other hand, weren’t doing “farming” as much as localized gardening, greatly supplemented by hunting, fishing and gathering, thus they had no need to expend the energy to cut down all the forests for farm land.

There are in fact FAR more deer in N.America today then when Columbus arrived, as the intensive deforestation for farming implemented by Europeans created the perfect environment for deer, much better then the dense pre-Colombian woodlands the Indians inhabited.

We have this thread literally every day.

Well, there's a lot more trees in a lot of areas in the US. Texas has way more than it used to, as do a lot of the Great Plains just in the last 50 years.

>the modification of the American continent by fire at the hands of American Indians was the result of repeated, controlled, surface burns on a cycle of one to three years, broken by occasional holocausts from escape fires and periodic conflagrations during times of drought. So extensive were the cumulative effects of these modifications that it may be said that the general consequence of the Indian occupation of the New World was to replace forested land with grassland or savannah, or, where the forest persisted, to open it up and free it from underbrush. Most of the impenetrable woods encountered by explorers were in bogs or swamps from which fire was excluded; naturally drained landscape was nearly everywhere burned. Conversely, almost wherever the European went, forests followed. The Great American Forest may be more a product of settlement than a victim of it."
Pyne, Stephen J., Fire in America: A Cultural History of Wildland and Rural Fire. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press

You (and the author) are conflating Plains Indians occasionally* burning grassland either to drive game or renew grass for game, with Eastern Woodland Indians, who had no reason to burn down forests as they were only gardening on a small local scale. In addition to the fact that they had neither the manpower nor the technology to remove huge ass old growth trees (which are only scorched in a forest fire, not burned to ashes). And then there are the numerous historical records from European colonists repeatedly mentioning gigantic impenetrable forests everywhere and what a gigantic pain in the ass it was to clear them (with steel tools) for European type large scale farming (which again, the Eastern Woodland Indians didn't do).

* And what burns did happen, were more than likely natural occurrences due to lightning strikes during particularly dry periods.

So youre saying that after a ~90% apocalyptic population drop there were less people, less need to clear underbrush, and that much of the forrest regrew in the hundred + years between the great dying and colonization? That's super interesting and not obvious at all.

Can you really "take" land from nomadic people?

Indian and Chinese traders encountering African tribes, and tribes in Southeast Asia. The Chinese did light trading with the Aborigines in Australia and in India there are still primitive hunter gatherer tribes that were largely left alone by the various Indian principalities and today by the modern Indian government.

No, I’m not saying that. Is English perhaps a 2nd language for you?

What I’m saying, is the same thing I said here and That the Pre-Colombian Americas were chock full of huge old growth forests, (that take a lot longer then 100 years to grow) as the Indians (outside of Mesoamerica) DID NOT burn and/or deforest vast tracts of land, as they had no need nor the manpower or technology to do so and that it is absolutely stupid to suggest that there is _more_ forest today, then back then.

The deforestation we see today is the result of European intensive agriculture.

Nobody faults the mongols for conquering the largest contiguous land empire in history, while raping and pillaging along the way. Time heals all historical wounds.

>Indians (outside of Mesoamerica) DID NOT burn and/or deforest vast tracts of land

lol

>One of the first things the English discovered about American Indians in Virginia was that they burned their wildlands. Grassland in Virginia rapidly succeeds to forest unless maintained by grazing, mowing, or fire.
Brown, Hutch. 2000 Wildland Burning by Native Americans In Virginia, Fire Management Today; Vol. 60 Issue 3, p29

>Two days after first sighting the coast of Virginia in 1607, the Jamestown colonists noticed “great smokes of fire” rising from deep in the woods. “We marched to those smokes,” recalled George Percy, “and found that the savages had been there burning down the grass as, we thought, either to make their plantation there or else to give signs to bring their forces together, and so to give us battle.”
Percy, G. 1607. Observations gathered of the southern colony in Virginia by the English, 1606. In: Haile, E.W., ed. 1998. Jamestown narratives. Champlain, VA: RoundHouse: 85–100

>European settlers found extensive areas of open game habitat throughout the East, commonly called “barrens”. The American Indians used fire to maintain such areas as rangeland. Europeans reported evidence of widespread grassland or savanna in two parts of Virginia: the Piedmont (including the Dan River watershed in southern Virginia) and the Shenandoah Valley.
Pyne, S.J. 1982. Fire in America. Seattle, London: University of Washington Press.

>Hu Maxwell claimed that had the colonists not “snatched the fagot from the Indian’s hand,” Virginia would have become one vast “pasture land or desert.”
Maxwell, H. 1910. The use and abuse of forests by the Virginia Indians. William and Mary College Quarterly Historical Magazine. 19(2): 73–104

>“most of the forests seen by the first settlers in America were in their first generation after one or another kind of major disturbance”
Raup, H.M. 1967. American forest biology. Journal of Forestry. 65: 800–803

>Nobody faults the mongols for conquering the largest contiguous land empire in history, while raping and pillaging along the way. Time heals all historical wounds.
Yeah, let's forget all those Russians and Chinese having their sweet revenge on the Mongols.

Woah there mister Hitler, you might want to slow down on all that zyklon b you've been huffing.

the opposite really
Europeans marveled how you could ride a carriage between the trees in Ohio because there was so little underbrush

>If it wasn't us
hmm
really makes you think

>there are examples of something not happening therefore that something is an aberration
literally exceptions to the rule, you're making the very mistake you accuse others of. Obviously not every single contact between more and less advanced cultures ends with the destruction of the less advanced culture, no one is claiming that .

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wounded_Knee_Massacre

The events that lead to this "battle" and what happened after it is very shameful.

The Sioux Wars were pretty brutal, several massacres by both sides.

It didn't help that the 7th Cavalry routinely used tactics that could spur them. Custer was notorious for it, breaking off a group of troopers to ride immediately for the women and children, intent on taking them hostage as the warriors would almost always surrender once aware of it.

At Little Bighorn;

>[Custer] expected to find the squaws and children fleeing to the bluffs on the north, for in no other way do I account for his wide detour. He must have counted upon Reno's success, and fully expected the "scatteration" of the non-combatants with the pony herds. The probable attack upon the families and capture of the herds were in that event counted upon to strike consternation in the hearts of the warriors, and were elements for success upon which General Custer fully counted.

Kek