Pepperm1nts said
I never said the English tried to commit genocide. That's Jannah's deal. I'm just saying the English did kill natives, a lot. And not just during war time. You're making it seem like the British were these guys who played by the rules and never, ever did anything without justification. They weren't saints, let's at least acknowledge that.

Saints? Certainly not. But closer to saints than demons. The British were more likely to 'play by the rules' than their opponents were, since more often than not their opponents didn't have any rules set up to play by.

Fair enough. But I tend to have a little sympathy for the natives, given their lands were being invaded. It's not like they just wanted to kill white people for the hell of it.

Pepperm1nts said
Fair enough. But I tend to have a little sympathy for the natives, given their lands were being invaded. It's like they just wanted to kill white people just because.

If me and a bunch of other white guys piled into a pick-up truck and drove through town firing shotguns at Filipinos, people wouldn't be happy about it. Natives (mostly Metis, who didn't have that long of a history in the land anyway) did the same thing when settlers came by Western Canada, only instead of guns and trucks they used bows and horses.

There are people in this country, a large number even, that call Louis Riel a hero, then bemoan British involvement in Canada with the next breath on the basis of how violent and inhumane it was.

I noticed you quoted that before I fixed it. I meant 'It's not like they wanted to kill white people for the hell of it".

Anyway, I get what you mean. But you seem to forget the colonists were occupying their land. And they weren't very nice about it. Does it justify ride-by archery (huehue)? Not really. But it's important to acknowledge these things didn't happen for no reason. That detail is important. They didn't do it because they were savage by nature. They did it because they felt invaded.

If someone comes into your country and starts forcing you out of your land, sometimes killing some of your people in the process, my guess is you'd be pretty pissed. That's all I'm saying.

Pepperm1nts said
I noticed you quoted that before I fixed it. I meant 'It's like they wanted to kill white people for the hell of it".Anyway, I get what you mean. But you seem to forget the colonists were occupying their land. And they weren't very nice about it. Does it justify ride-by archery (huehue)? Not really. But it's important to acknowledge these things didn't happen for no reason. That detail is important. They didn't do it because they were savage by nature. They did it because they felt invaded. If someone comes into your country and starts forcing you out of your land, sometimes killing some of your people in the process, my guess is you'd be pretty pissed. That's all I'm saying.

I can understand your point.

The Nexerus said
Natives (mostly Metis, who didn't have that long of a history in the land anyway) did the same thing when settlers came by Western Canada, only instead of guns and trucks they used bows and horses.

Yes except the settlers were not natives to canada but the invaders.

My understanding of the Indian-Settler conflict is that it's largely been exaggerated. While the settlers weren't good, the conflict was very, very far from black and white (more like light grey and normal grey) and comparing it to say, Nazi Germany would simply be wrong.

I don't think anyone's come close to comparing it to Nazi Germany.

Pepperm1nts said
I don't think anyone's come close to comparing it to Nazi Germany.

I was using an extreme hypothetical example. Not an actual example. Sorry.

Colonialism makes things better for the settlers and their empire but ruins the lives of the Mative inhabitants

Vortex said
Colonialism makes things better for the settlers and their empire but ruins the lives of the Native inhabitants

I would argue that it also helps the Natives...after the empire has left and gone home.

Vortex said
Yes except the settlers were not natives to canada but the invaders.

Clearly you know nothing about the history of the area.

Western Canada (the Prairies, not British Columbia) was only extensively settled around the turn of the 19th century and into the early decades of the 20th century. There were small numbers of early settlers before that, of course, but all of the cities that are now the largest in the region were only extensively populated starting in the early years of the 20th century.

Britain took possession of French North America in 1760. The Canadiens were around well before that. The Canadians that moved west to settle the Prairies, along with other European immigrants like Germans and Ukrainians, weren't 'invaders'. They were moving into land that their several hundred year old country had owned since 1870, before most of them were born. If that's not early enough for them to not be considered invaders, the precursor to their country had owned that land since around two hundred years before 1870—before the people that now claimed to own it, the Métis, had even existed, let alone lived there for any length of time (and even farther from actually having done anything to the land).

Yet the settlers still took the land from the native peoples whim had been living for many years prior. It matters not which country it is for it happened in Asia, Oceania, Australia, North and South America and Africa and the story is the same, settlers come, they exploit the land and people a imperialist Goverment is put into place.

Vortex said
Yet the settlers still took the land from the native peoples whim had been living for many years prior. It matters not which country it is for it happened in Asia, Oceania, Australia, North and South America and Africa and the story is the same, settlers come, they exploit the land and people a imperialist Goverment is put into place.

"Took the land"

No. They already owned the land.

"from the native peoples who had been living there prior"

Also no. The Métis were about as new to the area as white settlers.

"Asia, Oceania, Australia, North and South America and Africa and the story is the same, settlers come, they exploit the land and people a imperialist Goverment is put into place."

I can't think of any examples of settler migration ever having happened in Asia on any large scale. In Africa, people like the Boers had lived in their lands since before the later comers, the Zulu—who had the advantage of having black skin and thus being assumed to be the original inhabitants of whatever part of Africa they migrated to—had arrived. It's not important who lived there originally anyway; no ethnicity is native to anywhere on the planet. The only differences are how long that group has been there, and more importantly, what they've done since they got there.

You keep using the term 'exploitation' as a buzzword, as if the evil white-devils swarmed in and slaughtered the local populace, then used their bones as pickaxes to mine the diamonds out of their sacred monuments after having eaten their flesh. You need to learn that the world isn't black and white. Teaching the locals that the riverbed they've been using to shit in actually contains massive deposits of gold is hardly exploitation. There's a mutual benefit there. Who's benefiting more? That could be argued. But if it's the Europeans, then rightfully so. They're the ones who found the stuff in the first place.

The Nexerus said
I can't think of any examples of settler migration ever having happened in Asia on any large scale.

Yes it did not happen on large scale but it still happened.

The Nexerus said
In Africa, people like the Boers had lived in their lands since before the later comers, the Zulu—who had the advantage of having black skin and thus being assumed to be the original inhabitants of whatever part of Africa they migrated to—had arrived.

And there were people before the Boers came. And if what you say is true then the boers can exploit their part of Africa all they like but I doubt that they were the first peoples to live in that area.

The Nexerus said
It's not important who lived there originally anyway; no ethnicity is native to anywhere on the planet.

True enough but it still matters wether the colonists where their first or not. If they were then if they want to exploit the minerals then they can go for it. But if they are going to kick out the indigenous people in the process then no, that is not right.

The Nexerus said
You keep using the term 'exploitation' as a buzzword, as if the evil white-devils swarmed in and slaughtered the local populace, then used their bones as pickaxes to mine the diamonds out of their sacred monuments after having eaten their flesh.

In many instances the "white devils" as you described them did in fact kill much of the local populace or at the very least enslave them into the workforce. Are the settlers cannibals? No of course not. But did they mine their sacred monuments or cut them down for materials? Yes. Say if you were a native inhabitant who's whole life is dedicated to that particular monuments as it was supposedly placed their by the gods and all of a sudden it is dug up by the settlers, don't know about you but I would be fairly pissed.

The Nexerus said
Teaching the locals that the riverbed they've been using to shit in actually contains massive deposits of gold is hardly exploitation. There's a mutual benefit there. Who's benefiting more? That could be argued. But if it's the Europeans, then rightfully so. They're the ones who found the stuff in the first place.

But the native people were their first so it's their right to shit in the river if they want to, for they have no use for gold or money anyhow. As for the Europeans being right in benefiting more from the natives, I could not disagree with you more (surprise!). Who cares if the Europeans were the first to discover the diamonds or whatever? The Europeans should not have had so many or wars or be so greedy and cut down the forests and mine the mountains in order to fill their greed or war or whatever is the fashion to do in Europe at the time.

Vortex said
Yes it did not happen on large scale but it still happened. And there were people before the Boers came. And if what you say is true then the boers can exploit their part of Africa all they like but I doubt that they were the first peoples to live in that area.True enough but it still matters wether the colonists where their first or not. If they were then if they want to exploit the minerals then they can go for it. But if they are going to kick out the indigenous people in the process then no, that is not right.In many instances the "white devils" as you described them did in fact kill much of the local populace or at the very least enslave them into the workforce. Are the settlers cannibals? No of course not. But did they mine their sacred monuments or cut them down for materials? Yes. Say if you were a native inhabitant who's whole life is dedicated to that particular monuments as it was supposedly placed their by the gods and all of a sudden it is dug up by the settlers, don't know about you but I would be fairly pissed.But the native people were their first so it's their right to shit in the river if they want to, for they have no use for gold or money anyhow. As for the Europeans being right in benefiting more from the natives, I could not disagree with you more (surprise!). Who cares if the Europeans were the first to discover the diamonds or whatever? The Europeans should not have had so many or wars or be so greedy and cut down the forests and mine the mountains in order to fill their greed or war or whatever is the fashion to do in Europe at the time.

You have a habit of going off on tangents where you do nothing but rant about how awful western civilization is. I'm going to ignore those in this post.

No, it doesn't matter if they were there first or not. Why would it matter? As for slavery, it's not a European invention. Arabs took more African slaves than Europeans did. Furthermore, Europeans were the ones to eventually end slavery. Usually, they had to do this by force, since slavery had been engrained into the society of their colonies since before Europeans had ever arrived there.

Vortex said
Hello there! Just curious to see where my role play comrades sit on the Political scale! I consider myself a Communist/Marxist-Leninist/Trotskyist/Socialist/Progressive and my results from the political compass is Economic Left/Right -8.25 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian -7.13Do post I'm curious to find out where you folks sit!

I am a full supporter of Kadaeuxianism.

So long as I run the show, Emperor of the Earth would be an acceptable title, I don't have a problem.

Any current system with Politicians in charge of it, fuck that.

The Nexerus said
You have a habit of going off on tangents where you do nothing but rant about how awful western civilization is. I'm going to ignore those in this post.No, it doesn't matter if they were there first or not. Why would it matter? As for slavery, it's not a European invention. Arabs took more African slaves than Europeans did. Furthermore, Europeans were the ones to eventually end slavery. Usually, they had to do this by force, since slavery had been engrained into the society of their colonies since before Europeans had ever arrived there.

You have a habit of going off on a tangent where you do nothing but praise capitalism or imperialism. It matters wether they were first or not because, it's their homeland. As for slavery yes I agree it is not a European invention only for the fact however that it is not a invention at all but a concept. Arabs took more slaves then Europeans? Where's your proof? And even if that is true it matters not because we are discussing European colonisation not Arab Slavery. Europeans were the first to end slavery? Ha, don't make me laugh. Many middle eastern or Asian empires abolished slavery far before Europeans did. Also most native people of pick-a-country did not have slavery in the first place.

Kadaeux said
I am a full supporter of Kadaeuxianism. So long as I run the show, Emperor of the Earth would be an acceptable title, I don't have a problem. Any current system with Politicians in charge of it, fuck that.

If your the Emporer technically speaking your a politician or at the least a statesman.

Vortex said
If your the Emporer technically speaking your a politician or at the least a statesman.

Incorrect, i'd be Nobility.

And my rule would likely be absolutely terrible for other people, so while a system I ran is the only one i'd find acceptable, the end result would probably end up with the ghosts of Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler and Justin Beiber (the last of which would be among the first against the wall) going "Dude, chill out."