Manifest Destiny: was it really bad tho?

>I'm trying to work the angle that the arrival of Europeans and settling the land was actually a good thing.

Good thing for who? The Indians? The English? The world?

youtu.be/8dKTYIJK5ek?t=3150

Contact opened the possibility that people of many creeds now can work on common even international projects, like honoring natives and their spirit on a large scale.

It was good for the Anglo-Americans. Bad for the Mexicans and Native Americans. There isn't much more to it. Was it morally justifiable? Certainly not. Did it help propel the United States to unparalleled greatness? Yes.

Large scale intermarriage meant that the descendants of many native americans got to enjoy the same improved standards of living as the european invaders. Most exceptions to this were from the tribes who were already notoriously violent.

>improved standards of living

ha

See, you could imagine a scientific ethos based on a native theological philosophy.
While it is true that all peoples pressured the environment, the philosophical basis on which we lead life does determine the left impact under similar circumstances.
One could ask himself how things would develop if we shared a philosophical thought, based on native American theological contents as opposed to the mainly greco-abrahamic (western) ones.

One could even go as far as asking oneself what kind of science the use of subsequent native American symbology and thought matrix could bring forward in the sciences, even though I think that goes too far for you to abstract.

Here I found some inspiration (not sure about the exact accuracy, but it seems alright):
youtube.com/watch?v=7zK--HOW9bs

I think it might be similar to native Americans, I'm an animist and therefor see machines as not inherently different from living systems, for example the recycling system can be understood as an eco-system...
I think Varg has been impacted by abrahamic apocalyptical thinking, nevertheless it might be good inspiration.

Compare settlers' treatment of natives to the native's treatment of other natives.

Spoiler; the difference is the amount of cannibalism and that's about it.

The colonists had as much right to Sioux land as the Assiniboine did. Which is to say; native Americans are hypocrites for criticizing any conquerors or the act of stealing of anything, or breaking treaties. Blackfoot confederacy members especially. They backstabbed "allies" all the time.

this, the Ojibwe forcefully invaded and removed the Dakota from what is now northern Minnesota. They're no better than the men who conquered them, as if there is a "better" or "worse"

Eminent domain has nothing to do with it

Sitting Bull: You must take them out of our lands.

Col. Nelson Miles: What precisely are your lands?

Sitting Bull: These are the where my people lived before you whites first came.

Col. Nelson Miles: I don't understand. We whites were not your first enemies. Why don't you demand back the land in Minnesota where the Chippewa and others forced you from years before?

Sitting Bull: The Black Hills are a sacred given to my people by Wakan Tanka.

Col. Nelson Miles: How very convenient to cloak your claims in spiritualism. And what would you say to the Mormons and others who believe that their God has given to them Indian lands in the West?

Sitting Bull: I would say they should listen to Wakan Tanka.

Col. Nelson Miles: No matter what your legends say, you didn't sprout from the plains like the spring grasses. And you didn't coalesce out of the ether. You came out of the Minnesota woodlands armed to the teeth and set upon your fellow man. You massacred the Kiowa, the Omaha, the Ponca, the Oto and the Pawnee without mercy. And yet you claim the Black Hills as a private preserve bequeathed to you by the Great Spirit.

Sitting Bull: And who gave us the guns and powder to kill our enemies? And who traded weapons to the Chippewa and others who drove us from our home?

Col. Nelson Miles: Chief Sitting Bull, the proposition that you were a peaceable people before the appearance of the white man is the most fanciful legend of all. You were killing each other for hundreds of moons before the first white stepped foot on this continent. You conquered those tribes, lusting for their game and their lands, just as we have now conquered you for no less noble a cause.

- Bury my Heart at Wounded Knee (2007)

Cont.

Didnt want to hit the character cap, but this kind of sums up my feelings on the matter. People have been fighting over land since the dawn of time, measiering up such things as "good" or "bad" is pointless and only seeks to reignite old injustices. I cannot say that the lot of the Amerindian would be better without us, but it could be a whole lot worse.

Inter-tribal warfare and the wholesale ethnic cleansing practiced by whites are hardly comparable. The former was in large part ritual and spiritual, the latter was an overwhelmingly powerful force grinding an inferior one into the dustbin of history.

War has always been an attempt to cleave your neighbors from the valuable resources that you both are competing over since fucking ever, so dont try to rationalize the ones the savages fought as "spiritualistic" like that makes it any better when they defile the loved ones of the people they fight and take turns slaughtering one another every chance they had. The Crusades are considered spiritual and they where some of the most well-recorded attempted genocides in history you fucking nitwit, mysticism and culture don't make war nice or justified or in any way fucking better.

>War has always been an attempt to cleave your neighbors from the valuable resources that you both are competing over since fucking ever
Except that isn't true. A great deal of the conflict among Amerindians were ritual raids, it wasn't 'we'll kill all of your able bodied men, destroy your way of life and then take all of your land permanently'. It's a pretty important distinction unless you want to be intellectual dishonest.

>A great deal of the conflict among Amerindians were ritual raids

Fine, lets press this matter, provide me a reasonable source that the majority of new world Amerindian wars where purely ritual, and not over pragmatic matters like freeing up resources for use or cutting them down to size.

It's a fundamentally different conception of conflict. Organizing a war-band to fulfill a coming of age ritual for young men and marshalling a professional army to not only wipe all traces of your enemy practically off the face of the earth, but ensure that their culture, religion and way of life can never be practiced again is a big difference.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flower_war
One of the best examples of ritualized war as opposed to strict conquest.

they had real wars of conquest in addition to flower wars, which were basically the aztec method of playing pretend war to keep other states preoccupied without committing to any real war efforts, allowing them to focus on actual conquests.

Visit a reservation, you'll find a third world country within our own. Despite getting free housing and government money, they can't seem to manage the whole civilization thing. They're still at odds with other tribes even to this day, to the point that when the alcoholics come into my town to get their booze, if they see someone from another tribe there's going to be a fight. There's gangs on the res and their turf wars resemble the tribal wars of old. Isn't stopping savagery, and spreading civility, a noble cause? Maybe the honorable thing to do would have been to swiftly wipe them all out, so no soul must suffer being born a savage, with a mind that's less capable and prone to violent behavior. Think of the suffering we could stop. Many couldn't feed themselves or their children without assistance, are we really doing the world, and future generations, a deed by keeping such genes around? So that they spread and eventually there are fools everywhere committing acts of violence, who's children would starve should we stop throwing our wealth at them?
>B-but muh culture
What fucking culture? Their culture is spectacle. If idiots dancing around in feathers captures your attention more than the technology and philosophy of ancient European and Asian cultures, you're of low intelligence.

Stop the suffering, make every man a superior man. We have the technology and it can be done without violence. This land was civilized and made great because superior men utilized it, rather than savages occupying it in a constant state of pointless warfare. Many inferior species have gone extinct on this planet, millions of them, and we don't consider it a loss but a victory, that the more capable survived and thrived, making this planet more than a celestial sized zoo. We are not a part of the fucking fauna, we don't run around naked screeching like animals, barely knowing more than a stick and a rock. We are much greater, and it's our collective vision and actions as a people that made us so.

Enjoy being replaced by Mexicans

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_Canyon
A more recent and accurately recorded example of practical warfare as opposed to ritualized war between natives.

The apocalypse was bound to happen sooner or later. Enjoy living in the hell on Earth you created.

What about the other cities they strictly conquered? Do you think the Aztec Empire always existed?

And how the fuck did "ritual raids" force a whole people to migrate from one land to another?

So I guess you study English but don’t understand the meaning of the word good?

Do you mean it was good for Europeans? Well maybe. They gained resources but if you believe in morality then you could argue that Europeans smeared themselves with their actions.

Was it good for the injuns? Well no, the red man had a vigorous civilization that was wiped out. Revisionist Americans sometimes try to argue that Injuns were environmentally destructive psychopathic violent madmen but really that’s only a good description of the European settlers.

Was it Good in an absolute Platonic sense? iPso facto if you believe in determinism.

>be total ignoramus faggot
>unironically argue that Aztecs were evil and it was good that Spain destroyed them because Aztecs practiced human sacrifice
>forget that Spain and England and all the Europeans were busily burning witches, heretics, heathens, and such in public spectacles at the same time and only intensified their own version of human sacrifice as they colonized the Americas and became “enlightened”.

>strawmaning hard

Truth

>ye old "He says thing (a) is bad, so he must be insinuating thing (b) is good" strawman

Grasping at straws, eh?

>spamming phone screenshots of facebook memes unironically
God, please kill this miserable website in its sleep, I can't bear to see it vomiting all over itself any longer

All I know is that they killed 1% of the people who walked the Oregon trail.

MUH NOBLE SAVAGE

It's pretty simple. America belongs to the Amerindians the same as europe belongs to europeans. Isn't it fair?

>So my English class
Fuck off underage fgt.

You could be really snarky and say that the white immigrants were diversifying and culturally enriching the continent.

Not that simple. Europe is full, in fact I'd say overpopulated. The Americas at the time we're very sparsely populated, there was room for more populations to live together peacefully and far away from each other. One of the biggest problems with the injins is they claimed vast swaths of land for their tribe that was merely the size of an extended family.

Or you could be really snarky and say that nobody likes a sore loser

>europe is full
I see a lot of space and waste of resources that can be used for the benefit of foreigners though.

Europe surely isn't full.

So you support european replacement.