top 42 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 131 points 1 year ago (12 children)

You forgot the pre-1700s picture where all of the US is red.

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] [S] 78 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    Bloodthirsty british and european settlers, greedy for land, wiped out hundreds of native tribes, each with rich cultures, art, languages, and beliefs. And most of this happened less than 150 years ago.

    Clearing an entire continent of peoples is unprecendented in history, and what's worse, is that it's still ongoing, and no one has had to account for this earth-shattering crime.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [+] -28 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (9 children)
  • [–] [S] 44 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Diseases did not conquer hundreds of tribes. The history of the new world is a one of campaigns of war and conquest against indigenous peoples. The fact that many are ignorant of this history is part of the whitewashing project. I linked some audiobooks below so you can learn this history.

    If the nazis won, they would teach you about the shoah in exactly the same way western nations teach you about the colonization of the americas.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 29 points 1 year ago

    Diseases did not conquer hundreds of tribes.

    Disease played a major role in the European's ability to conquer those tribes. It's not an either/or situation. It is true that the "Americas" that the English started colonizing had already been devastated by the contagions brought by the Spanish. The English undoubtedly would have found it far more difficult and maybe even impossible to conquer those hundreds of tribes had they not first been so severely depopulated by pandemic. Acknowledging this does not absolve or even lessen the atrocities committed by the English.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    The upper estimates are around 90%. It's likely lower. But even an order of magnitude like that is not "wiped out". Millions of people still lived on the land

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Very true, but Spaniards did not know about the lack of immunity from European diseases and never had that intention for erasure of Indigenous. The English, that colonized 2 centuries after the Spaniards, used European diseases as an additional tool for complete genocide on indigenous.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago

    Germ theory was unknown then and those Spaniards lacked understanding of contagion, well I'm lying, the people then knew about contagion with blood and corpses but not through items like air or blankets. The disease spread, while catastrophic it was fully unintentional. The only accounts like the famed Bartolomé de las Casas described the diseases as "divine punishment" or "mysterious plague", never as a warfare tool.

    However with the British, again more than 2 centuries later, there was knowledge and intent as per Jeffrey Amherst and Colonel Henry Bouquet discussing it "Could it not be contrived to send the smallpox among the disaffected tribes?" "I will try to inoculate them with some blankets…" during the Siege of Fort Pitt (1763).

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago*

    Of course they are. They are both prime examples of settler colonialism in action.

    People forget that Israel started as a British colony

  • source
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Don't worry, we'll put it in the textbooks 100 years from now to talk about how cruel we were

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 40 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    To see diagram progressions like this is really sad. like a beautiful rainforest gradually being chipped away into nothing. same perps too considering the vast majority of Israelis are European

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    What percentage are European? I didn't know that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Look up DNA testing in Israel, their govt doesn't want people testing and finding out their genetic history seems to include an awful lot of eastern Europe and not anything from the Middle East.

    Even Ashkenazi Jews are from Turkey, not historic Palestine.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Purdy much, most Palestinians are actually the native Jewish population who converted to Christianity and then Islam. That's why the Israeli government doesn't want DNA testing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago

    The official Israeli CBS cites 50% of Israeli Jews having their ancestry in Europe, primarily Ashkenazi and post-Soviet groups.... but of course, with DNA test ban in Israel is hard to know for sure... Being 75% of the Israeli population Jewish, that places it as 2/3 of Jews in Israel are from European origin... and that is their own stats. I would even say more are.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 22 points 1 year ago

    Same perpetrators as well.

  • source
  • [–] 39 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

    "Indian reservations" are concentration camps

    German labor camps were obviously concentration camps

    and the strategic hamlet program were concentration camps

    and ICE detention centers are concentration camps

    either way it is always white people and their concentration camps

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I get the sentiment, and by no means are the reservations good or something that should've been how it played out, but I do feel like putting them on the same level as ICE centers and concentration camps downplays just how bad those latter two really are/were.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I get the feeling you've not been told about all the death and disease Native Americans experienced in reservations, especially at the beginning. The only real difference is reservations did not have buildings...they were just wastelands.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Wait a sec, wasn't the majority of that land in the western states claimed by New Spain and then Mexico? How is the maker of this map qualifying "land of native nations"?

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    There were people there before New Spain and Mexico claimed the land. I imagine they're qualifying it using something like the map I linked.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    ah yes, that time when america was a land without people, and americans were a people without land

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -3 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    Then it's fine to fasten a noose around the natives' neck and very gradually tighten it?

    What else could you be indicating by posting about this in this context? It's true that natives were nomadic people moving through the land, but how does that make it right for europeans to come in and claim land in a permanent fashion from across the globe?

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    The lands you are probably referring was the Mexican Cession (most of the US western lands now). That cession happened after the Mexican war that ended in the treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo signed in 1848. So the map mostly accurately reflects that as US territory in 1850.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 17 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    Isn't it fair to say that Native Americans didn't consider land to be "owned" by anyone? What colonialism (and agriculture) did was assert control over land that was previously thought to be communal.

    The tragedy of the commons is a capitalist invention. Shared resources have all been managed effectively until the point where they become considered private resources.

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›