It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Americans committed the worst genocide in world history

page: 33
67
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 05:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
 
spaniards didn't kill off the natives they interbred with them.

It is interesting that you mention this. The Northern Europeans who migrated to North America not interbreeding shows restraint, and self-control. Why did they behave so differently than the Spaniards?

Were they this different in mentality, or what caused them to not interbreed?




posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 05:15 AM
link   
reply to post by ThinkingHuman
 


what makes you think they didnt interbreed?

You really havent informed yourself at all.

Your thread should be titled as follows:

DID Americans commit the worst genocide in world history????

because if you are here to learn something then you shouldnt start off with a declaration but rather should form a question. You dont seem to be in a position to teach anyone.

There was interbreeding in all colonies in the Americas. There is ALWAYS interbreeding from one dominant culture over another. Usually the dominant culture´s males breed with the submissive cultures women. Been that way since prehistoric times. For example most Neanderthal DNA in us comes from female neanderthal paring with male homosapiens.

The Northern American peoples just did so more because of social programs that were meant to "help integrate" natives...kind of like all these leftist minority oriented programs today that just rob people of their cultural identity.... That is why you have white people with native American heritage today. Only a few northern native populations were able to resist and retain their cultural identity.

In south America the interbreeding wasnt as programmed and so isnt as visible today....

In the caribbean, due to the isolated nature of the islands and the function of those port cities, the interbreeding was greater in those Spanish colonies and that is why you have completely transformed populations. There you have mix of African (from the slave trade), European ,(from the settlers), and a very small portion of native caribbean genes whose population wasnt that big to begin with.


edit on 13-8-2013 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by tadaman
 
what makes you think they didnt interbreed?
You really havent informed yourself at all.

There was interbreeding in all colonies in the Americas. There is ALWAYS interbreeding from one dominant culture over another.

The Northern American peoples just did so more because of social programs that were meant to "help integrate" natives...

You sound more misguided by the minute. You're "informed" to the point that you know that "There was interbreeding in all colonies" - why? because there "ALWAYS" is.

Yep.

They did the wars and the massacres as a way of integrating with them. Sure. Anything you say.

You are making irrational claims, most likely, in a vain attempt to distract from my question, so I will ask it again, Why did the Europeans in the US not, or minimally, interbreed with the Natives? Is their mentality so vastly different from that of the Spaniards?

To be clear - it is not a coincidence that the US and Canada (and Australia) became "First World", "developed nations" - whereas Latin America and other former colonies became "Third World", "developing nations". The British are better at NOT "integrating".



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 08:55 AM
link   
change the headline from Americans to united states government that's my only disagreement you cant blame all Americans smh



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by tadaman
 


I thought this thread was dead, but since its still kicking I'll poke my head back in for a minute.


HOW is the US responsible of for the greatest Genocide in history when the greatest numbers of natives killed died under European rule?


1763 Under British rule.

King George III wanted to establish a stronger government in the Colonies. To keep peace with the Indians, he issued the Proclamation of 1763. The Proclamation gave the land west of the Appalachian Mountains to the Indians for their Hunting Grounds. Any colonists who were already settled in this area were forced to return to the eastern side of the Appalachians. The territory given to the Indians was not to be a part of any colony and the colonists could not buy or trade for land in that area. This made a boundary limiting the colonists to the east side of the Appalachians. King George III did not realize how much territory he was giving the Indians.
matej.ceplovi.cz...

But the king didn't know what all he was giving away to non Europeans. Dumb king. We'll show him who's boss!!!

1781

Eventually the states agreed to give control of all western lands to the federal government, paving the way for final ratification of the articles on March 1, 1781, just seven and a half months before the surrender of Lord Cornwallis and his British Army at Yorktown, October 19, 1781
www.barefootsworld.net...

Most of the massacres of Indians took place after this date because the new government couldn't control all those "western lands" if they were overrun by a bunch of wild red skins with no sense of "civilization".

1830

Among the most detrimental policies for Native Americans in U.S. history began in the early 1800s. By 1830, Andrew Jackson had signed the Indian Removal Act, which authorized a plan to appropriate Indian land, a practice that had been followed since Europeans arrived in North America. The idea of segregating Indians onto poor land was first suggested by Thomas Jefferson after the Louisiana Purchase. Thus began a system of appropriating Indian land and undermining Indian culture that has been expressed throughout U.S. history. Although many Indians had taken on European cultural traits, including religious conversion, and worked their land using white methods, they were still considered incapable of assimilating into white society. Despite continuing efforts by Europeans to convert Indians to Christianity, they continued to be viewed as heathens in both popular cultural and society.
www.understandingrace.org...


And, as you probably know, the federal government still owns and controls all that land, you don't, you heathen.



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by yogi9969
 
change the headline from Americans to united states government that's my only disagreement you cant blame all Americans

I agree with your comment.

However, my statement is correct, in that the people who did it were Americans (not European, African or Asian). Many Americans had nothing to do with it. Those who did were, you guessed it.

Would you agree with a statement like 'The Germans had nothing to do with the Holocaust, it was only the German government' and like so many others here have claimed, 'we should stop talking about it, because it was long ago'?



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by ThinkingHuman
 


No. I know this from 1 being a Spaniard and actually studying my own history as well as 2 being married to a native American woman who studied this her entire life. We have talked quite a bit about it actually. I also spend my free time reading about history...have for some years now.

you keep saying I am delusional...yet have no actual information to back up anything you say.

you may not like what I say but you have as of yet to actually dispute it.

your counter arguments are just emotionally charged butt hurt.


edit on 13-8-2013 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 


I wont argue that but the US didn't even own any western lands until much later and didn't even get the first settlers there until later still.



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by tadaman
 
No. I know this from 1 being a Spaniard
you keep saying I am delusional...yet have no actual information to back up anything you say.
you may not like what I say but you have as of yet to actually dispute it.

There was no disagreement about the Spaniards.
Read a few pages in this thread.



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by tadaman
reply to post by frazzle
 


I wont argue that but the US didn't even own any western lands until much later and didn't even get the first settlers there until later still.


Did you miss this part?

1781
Eventually the states agreed to give control of all western lands to the federal government, paving the way for final ratification of the articles on March 1, 1781.

How much later is later? Yes, possession is a totally different animal and getting that took a number of years and a lot of bloodshed but the PLAN to take possession was there by at least 1781, and the king's proclamation probably had a lot of knickers in a twist long before that.

The settlers? Yeah, the Homestead Act of 1862 is probably the way most people think about how the west was won, for and by the American people, westward ho the wagons and all that. But that also was not all it was cracked up to be in American history books, either.


Congress constantly amended the Homestead Act so as to allow settlers less time to claim their land. This opened the door for fraud. By letting settlers file for land titles early settlers then paying a small price per acre Congress encouraged them to make momentary improvements in order to obtain the land and settle their title to a speculator or monopolist. Congress did not encourage settlers to establish permanent farms for themselves.

So instead of the Homestead Act promoting small farms, it ended up promoting the large western ranch. Of the some 1 billion acres of public land that the government owned in the nineteenth century, 183 million acres went to railroad corporations; 140 million acres to the states; 100 million acres to Indian tribes; and 100 million acres to free farmers (the total acreage given out in cash sales). (One half of the land had not been sold because it had been reserved for national parks or was totally unsuited for agricultural development.)

www.enotes.com...

The railroads were given more than the states and almost twice as much as "settlers".

The more things change the more they stay the same. Today, Wall Street Bankers are foreclosing on homeowners not because they plan to live in the houses but because they need the full value of those properties on their books so as to not appear to be as bankrupt as they are.



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 11:32 AM
link   
triple
edit on 13-8-2013 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 11:34 AM
link   
double
edit on 13-8-2013 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by ThinkingHuman
 


That makes zero sense. what are you talking about?
how does that prove your fanciful idea that the US committed the "worst genocide in history"

you can list every terrible thing done to natives but that doesn't equate to genocide ....much less the worst ever. Read some history you may vomit....

displacement and atrocities sure.....mass genocide no.

so Europe gets a free pass In your book for the colonization of the Americas....I see.....



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 


yes but my point is that 1 king george didn't control that spain did

and 2 by the time the US got any troops there most settlers were left over Europeans ....some still exist there today and on their original stolen land.

the greatest deaths occurred during the first 100 years of conquest.

anything else people say is just revisionist European history...and badly done at that.

we displaced what was left.....Europeans killed the rest and did so before we were even a country....



edit on 13-8-2013 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by tadaman
reply to post by frazzle
 


yes but my point is that 1 king george didn't control that spain did


Spain controlled what?



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 




I thought this thread was dead, but since its still kicking I'll poke my head back in for a minute.


Ditto - but I guess I can't help myself as well and have got to have another two penn'orth.



But the king didn't know what all he was giving away to non Europeans.


I think that's quite true, nobody was aware of the great expanse of the North American continent and the 'opportunities' it provided for people to make a new start.

And that was one of the reasons most were completely unaware of the devastating effect and impact on Native Americans that 'western' diseases had.
Contact with the settlers was restricted to a very small minority, they returned to the plains etc unaware of the viruses that they carried with them.

reply to post by ThinkingHuman
 




.....so I will ask it again, Why did the Europeans in the US not, or minimally, interbreed with the Natives?


Of course Europeans, and after independence Americans, interbred with Native Americans, which is evident by the number of people in this thread alone who have stated they have Native American heritage.

As an aside it would be interesting to find out how many Native Americans alive today are actually purebred.



Is their mentality so vastly different from that of the Spaniards?


First of all, Spanish are European as well you know.

But there are key differences in the approach and aims of British, French, Dutch etc settlement of Northern America and Spanish and Portuguese conquest of Southern America.
The primary drivers for the Iberian ventures into Southern America were conquest, trade and perhaps even religious conversion.
With the discovery of large amounts of gold and silver it became apparent that the natives had to be conquered to enable Spain to gain control of this vast wealth.
As a result the vast majority of settlers were males seeking adventure and fortune - in fact remarkably few women went with them. And of course nature being what it is interbreeding occurred.
It wasn't until much, much later that significant numbers of women from Spain and Portugal made the journey to South America by which time Spain and Portugal had established firm control of the continent.

In contrast the primary goal of colonisers from Northern Europe into North America was settlement.
Of course trade and by extension conquest were important, nevertheless right from the outset relatively large numbers of women journeyed to the New World with their men folk determined to start a new life together and so as a result there was less sexual contact.



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 



Spain controlled MOST of the western continent until its power was removed by the mexican war of independence . France to a lesser extent as well until Napoleon sold its American holdings much later.


edit on 13-8-2013 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 



I think that's quite true, nobody was aware of the great expanse of the North American continent and the 'opportunities' it provided for people to make a new start.


What? European fur trappers and traders had been all over the western part of this country since the 1600s, usually along with their Indian guides. Europeans were all a flutter over the furs brought back from the "new country" and everyone there knew the stories of the vast expanse of the wild lands, including the kings.


And that was one of the reasons most were completely unaware of the devastating effect and impact on Native Americans that 'western' diseases had.
Contact with the settlers was restricted to a very small minority, they returned to the plains etc unaware of the viruses that they carried with them.


Some of those diseases were transported into western lands by Lewis and Clark in 1804, before them there were no epidemics. A guy named Nicholas Biddle funded that expedition. He was the president of the US Central Bank. He also edited the final report of that expedition. Take from that what you will.

Incidentally many Indians did survive the diseases, some with hideous scars, but still alive.



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by tadaman
 



Napoleon sold its American holdings much later.


Much later? Like a little over 20 years is much later? T Jefferson negotiated the Louisiana Purchase in 1802 and Lewis and Clark's expedition happened two years after that. No moss growing under their feet. And they didn't stop at the Spanish border, they went all the way to the pacific ocean.

www.maps.com...



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 01:05 PM
link   
quit using the collective "we"...I feel absolutely no guilt for what happened to the native American Indians. I was born in 1952, and had nothing to do with them or racism against blacks. trying to falsely shame me and others, that had nothing to do with it then, or have had nothing to do with it during our lifetimes, invalidates the very argument you are trying to make.



new topics

top topics



 
67
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join