It is generally considered polite to reply to what a poster actually said, rather than getting angry with them because of what an unrelated, completely different person said.
Also it was Europeans doing many of these 'things' as Americans didn't really exist until the late 18th C.
I agree about politeness, although I have also encountered similar attitudes - and it seems that there's quite a bit of misinformation about America floating around out there. Different people might say different things and reach different conclusions, but they're seemingly all rooted in the same historical misinterpretations based on arbitrary philosophical positions regarding what is a "natural" nation versus an "artificial" one.
I've encountered such attitudes from Europeans quite often. I recall some Germans denigrating America by saying that we're a bunch of "mutts" while countries like Germany are "pure." (They didn't use the word "Aryan" but they might as well have.)
I simply pointed out a couple of facts (which you can objectively verify if you so wish):
1. During the colonisation of America, Native Americans were replaced by Europeans as occupiers of the land.
Not necessarily. The early stages of colonization were characterized by coexistence, sometimes peaceful, sometimes not.
Based on the same argument you used above, there were no "Native Americans," since no country called "America" actually existed at the time.
The continent was sparsely populated by hundreds of separate nations whose territories were rather small compared to European states - and where the vast majority of land was uninhabited and mostly unclaimed by international standards. That's where this line of argumentation you're using falls short, since it's based on modern perceptions of America as they are today, based on our current boundaries and our status as a singular geopolitical entity.
So, the assumption that whatever existed on the same territory prior to 1607 was all some non-existent nation called "Native America," which would be an erroneous assumption to make.
2. This is atypical as usually a smallish elite implement cultural changes, but the genetic stock of the people largely remains the same (i.e. the same people adopt a new culture).
I suppose one could say the same about America, at least as far as the smallish elite implementing changes and policy. The territorial boundaries were drawn by European aristocrats, at least inasmuch as determining which territories belonged to Britain, France, or Spain. Again, "America" didn't really exist at this point. It was merely Europeans carving up a continent - a practice which would also be used in Africa and Asia.
By the time of the American Revolution, the 13 Colonies were essentially provinces/vassals of the British Empire. Our culture was whatever the colonists brought over from other lands (although it wasn't entirely British, since there were also Dutch, Swedes, Germans, French, Spanish, etc. also occupying the land, not to mention cultural influences from the Natives and the Africans who were being brought over).
But most of the base culture - at least in terms of language, literature, political philosophies, system of common law, etc. - most of that came from England, often called our "Mother Country." It's just that by 1776, "Mom" was getting pretty crazy, and her colonies were getting restless.
Someone (maybe it was you) upthread compared America to "teenagers," but in this case, the "teenagers" had already moved out of the house and gained self-sufficiency, yet "Mom" still kept coming over trying to run their lives. Even worse, she was a mooch, constantly broke and needing money - since she was living too high off the hog and getting into stupid petty disputes with the other "Moms" in her neighborhood.
If we use England as an example the Romans occupied it but the English are not of Mediterranean ancestry. Saxons and Vikings settled some places, but there is no evidence of the large scale battles you would have expected if they were 'eradicating' the locals. DNA evidence also doesn't support your idea of population replacement. Just as when Aethelstan of Wessex became the first real king of England in the 10th C, he didn't eradicate the populations of Mercia, Northumbria and East Anglia and replace them with people from Wessex.
Different circumstances. If there were a million Romans coming to England and the indigenous population was far fewer in number, then it might have turned out differently. If 100,000 people move to an area where there were only 50 living before, then one doesn't have to intentionally eradicate those 50 people to make them appear non-existent.
Some information is still a bit sketchy, such as the actual population of indigenous peoples in America prior to colonization. I've seen estimates with a rather wide range, from 150 million to just a few million. There's also a question of whether they were actually replaced or simply absorbed/assimilated. Again, information is spotty, but DNA evidence might show that a good percentage of apparently "white" Americans have a small portion of Native ancestry.
The main difference is in numbers. When the Romans occupied various lands, they were still dealing with sizable populations which they still depended on to work the land and operate the territory. Those of Roman ancestry were still a numerical minority in the territories they conquered. This was comparable to the European occupation of their colonies in Africa and Asia, where Europeans were a tiny minority in lands with millions of indigenous people.
It was different in America, as there were millions upon millions of Europeans moving into lands which were sparsely-settled by relatively small numbers of indigenous people.
I'm not denying the atrocities or the outright racial hatred that characterized much of our history, but even if we didn't have that - even if it was an amicable and peaceful migration - the end result would probably still turn out the same. That is, the atrocities existed separately from the migratory process which was already set in motion at the outset of the age of exploration and colonization.
We could have and should have pursued a policy of peaceful coexistence, but that, in and of itself, would not have prevented European migration to the Americas in general, nor would it have saved the buffalo or prevented railroading, ranching, or mining which spelled the death knell for the Natives' sovereignty and way of life.
As I said, I'm not one for applying modern ethical concerns to the past, history is what it is. No point blaming people today for what different people did in a different world centuries ago.
No point in pretending it's not part of your history though.
Who's pretending? There's no dispute over the actual facts here; it's just differing interpretations.
In this particular argument about America being a "young country" as opposed to the pompous "old countries" of Europe, both sides are partly correct here. It's true that the US government has operated continuously for well over two centuries without any real interruptions and characterized by peaceful transitions of power. Apart from the temporary British invasion in 1812, we've never been occupied or conquered. In contrast, most governments of Europe (and the rest of the world) can't really say that.
I can see
@dianaiad's point here, since I've encountered similar arrogant, condescending attitudes from Europeans who look down on Americans because we're somehow a "younger" country than the European countries steeped in a rich culture, long histories, and pompous traditions. As if this somehow confers greater wisdom based on elderliness. This, while they view Americans as "brash teenagers" by comparison, mocking our popular culture as being "no culture" at all. I've heard Europeans say things like "there is no American culture" and stuff like that. Frankly, it gets tiresome - although I can't say it's so bothersome as to break the barrier of "offensive" to me.
I do sometimes wonder about the basis of such hostility towards America coming from Britain and other Western European countries which are/were considered allies and friends. Despite the War of Independence and the War of 1812 - ever since then we've never really done anything hostile or aggressive towards Britain, France, or any other country of Europe. We never actually invaded Europe, although the Europeans invited us to participate in wars they had already started on their own.
I'm not saying this is true for all Brits or Europeans, but I have heard enough of it to see familiar patterns. Some of it just amounts to silly banter - like fans of rival sports teams trying to outdo each other. But some of it comes across as far more serious, as if there's some kind of underlying (albeit muted) hostility and hatred towards America which defies analysis.
I can see it from countries where we have a documented history of bad behavior. For example, people from Latin American countries have good, justifiable reasons for being hostile towards their North American neighbors. I get that. Same for the people of the Philippines, Vietnam, Korea, China, the Middle East, Africa, and elsewhere where US imperialism has operated in an odious fashion.
But by comparison, we've been relatively nice to the Europeans, so what's the basis of
their grudge against America? I've always wondered about that. They paint us as villains as if they think they're a bunch of saints.
