[/B][/COLOR]


So history blames the Europeans as much as the African slave traders, does this mean it's condonable behavior? of course not it's just easier for the white apologists to blame the black slave traders for enslaving their own kind isn't it?

I think it's perfectly rational to expect the society which makes such amazing technological and scientific advancements, to also advance in it's treatment of the native dwellers of a land. Surly such great minds should have some moral compass when it comes to the treatment of his fellow human beings. That make a rational sense doesn't it?

I don't think you know enough about our indigenous people. To call them uncivilized would only be your poor opinion. And pretty ignorant of the natives way of life and society.Politically they'd be much better off if the Europeans-United States had honored each and every contract that they had signed with the natives.

But...according to Bogie if the United States hadn't lied to them at every turn, they wouldn't be doing so well now.

well there are the casinos

If Europeans were good Samaritans just out to help their fellow man? Sure, but that's not realistically how progress is made.

Technologically deficient, underdeveloped, whichever makes you feel better.

You're equating technology to some sort of superior moral backbone. I don't believe whites are any more moral than any other ethnicity or culture. That you and Skinned hold Europeans of the time to a higher standard is emphatically internalized racism.

This post was edited by bogie160 on Apr 22 2015 09:23am

That is how Europeans colonized the currently developing world, not "how progress is made". Using deceptive and distancing language doesn't stop reality from being real.



No, the reality is that many Europeans could have traded and participated in mutually beneficial trades without other Europeans creating slavery, famines, and of course all the straight up slaughtering. If they had come across people who had military power and stuff they wanted they would have traded, but since they found people without advanced militarizes and stuff they wanted they just acted like barbarians in fancy clothing.

Your assertion that the terrible brutality that Algerians faced by the French, India faced by the British, etc, etc, were necessary for those places to develop, is completely insane and makes me think you cannot even see past your own ethnocentrism.

This post was edited by Skinned on Apr 22 2015 09:31am

don't

no


this claim is nothing but a myth.

I am saying that if there is the ability to easily travel from Continent to Continent. then there also should come the responsibility to not commit mass murder and kidnap to the host natives. they weren't 13 year old boys with some nifty new toys to try out on the neighbors dog.

What makes what the Europeans did any different from any single atrocity in history? Do you think the African tribes weren't warring against one another? That the West African kingdoms weren't established through conquest? That China didn't spend the better part of a thousand years trying to vanquish Vietnamese sovereignty? Do you believe that North America was a peaceful place before the Europeans arrived? That the Aztecs weren't despised by the tens of millions they oppressed?

The end result of Alexander the Great's genocidal exploits was Hellenization that brought enormous prosperity to Central Asia and the Levant. The unification of China was terrible, and yet it brought about a civilization that contributed in a large part to the modern world.

You're trying to apply a modern conception of morality to a time in which it didn't exist. Colonization was brutal, but it undeniably brought about a world in which the poor in large swathes of the globe no longer have to worry about dying of starvation and a myriad of equally terrible diseases.

You expect better of Europeans because you've internalized a certain image of how Europeans act. That is racist.

Yeah I don't visit reddit, I read that long time back. Thanks for correcting me also.