-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Do you think European colonization of America was a good thing?
- Thread starter Spiderman
- Start date
I don't think so. I am all for reaching out for other cultures, but this was not only predatorial, but also taught that such a predatorial and wasteful attitude was something to pursue.
Augustus
…
To judge 'good or bad' you need knowledge of what would otherwise have happened, which is obviously unknowable. So it's just one of these things that happened. History was violent everywhere and the powerful conquered the weak.
If there had been no colonialism, the native Americans would still have been fighting and killing each other and taking over rival territory. Eventually they would have acquired more modern technologies and attempted to conquer more and more rival territory.
Violent conquest wasn't something unique to Europeans after all.
If there had been no colonialism, the native Americans would still have been fighting and killing each other and taking over rival territory. Eventually they would have acquired more modern technologies and attempted to conquer more and more rival territory.
Violent conquest wasn't something unique to Europeans after all.
I can't say whether it's a good or bad thing, but it was inevitable. It certainly wasn't intended that way when Columbus first sailed out into an unknown sea and came across a continent which Europeans didn't know about. At that time, being ugly, brutal, and inhumane was the European way, both with each other and with non-Europeans.
A large part of the reason why Columbus went out in the first place was because the trade routes to India and China were being blocked by those governing the Middle East. The only way out was by sea. All they ever really knew was conquering and taking land, so when they got to the Americas, that's what they did. Once the Spanish started setting up colonies and other navigators started mapping the entire land mass, other European powers wanted in on the action - the Portuguese, French, Dutch, English.
I don't know if they had any grand plan from the start to conquer the continent. It seemed more chaotic and disorganized at first - religious fanatics who also happened to be pirates - and budding nationalists to boot, since our English forebears didn't want the French or the Spanish muscling in on our action.
A lot of the early settlers were mainly peasants who weren't military and weren't conquerors. Many of them got on quite well with the Natives and were able to trade with them and have mostly peaceful and positive interactions. It was when more and more started pouring in from Europe that it grew into what it later became.
I don't think Europeans really understood the nature of diseases at the time, so I don't know that they actually "used disease." That may have been unintentional. But in addition to military conquest, there was also a lot of deception, manipulation, and broken treaties. That was like rubbing salt in the wound.
I mean, military conquest is what it is. We may not like it, but a lot of countries have done it. The Greeks did it, the Romans did it, the Mongols did it, the Aztecs did it. But a lot of conquerors would often allow the conquered tribes/nations a certain degree of autonomy and independence - more benevolent terms of surrender. At various points in history, large chunks of land were set aside for the Indian tribes. All of the land between the Appalachian Mountains and the Mississippi River, for example, was to be granted to the Indians in return for their service during the French and Indian War, when that land was previously under French control. The English and other white colonists who wanted to expand and settle on that land were forbidden to do so, but that all changed after the Revolution.
Then we wanted to take more and more land, which we did with the Louisiana Purchase and the acquisition of Florida, which were land deals made with France and Spain. Then we took over the northern third of Mexico and made another land deal with the British to gain the Oregon Country. Early maps and treaties would indicate the intention of wanting to grant a good portion of land to the Native tribes and perhaps even some degree of autonomy and independence, so they could retain their culture and way of life. The state of Oklahoma was once earmarked as "Indian Territory," but even that changed. Just an endless parade of broken treaties and lies. But if that wasn't bad enough, they were all going to be made into "good Americans" whether they wanted to be or not. The government didn't want them speaking their own language or practicing their own religion.
In retrospect, at least in terms of conquering the territory and harnessing/developing the resources and industries which would eventually lead to America becoming a superpower, a lot of what was done in terms of how we treated "the conquered" was unnecessary. The territory was going to be conquered anyway, and that might automatically make a bad thing. But how it was done was even worse. It could have been better and produced the same or even better result.
Jumi
Well-Known Member
I think much of the blame in the Americas is actually Spain's.
This I would not agree with. Nazi Germany was far more twisted, all things considered.
It just happened that, as all evil things, it choked on its own achievement. And because it was so deeply evil, it choked before it could grow quite so much.
The European expansion into North America led to access to vast economic resources that for awhile made possible a more egalitarian society. That egalitarianism then inspired egalitarian movements in the rest of the world (although there was already a strong movement towards it in Western Europe, and especially Britain).
That's one plus for the thing.
That's one plus for the thing.
I voted <good>, but it's a complicated....only a net good, at the cost of much death &
destruction. Looking around our result is better than average. And even the aboriginals
who survived our "civilizing" them could've fared worse....imagine having the PRC in our role.
destruction. Looking around our result is better than average. And even the aboriginals
who survived our "civilizing" them could've fared worse....imagine having the PRC in our role.
It s
It sure is. And will continue to get sicker till it dies.The British Empire was worse than Nazi Germany!
It's a sick world
Spiderman
Veteran Member
True! British Empire conquered far more land and had concentration camps and what not and just got a slap on the wrist for it though
I guess it depends on what scope one is looking at. Many of the British mistakes came back to haunt it by way of WW1, IMO. And, in a less drammatic (but still very much significant) way, by political situations such as the loss of British India.
Edited to add: also, one has to ask what would a proper consequence be. While it is all too human to want to see ruin come to those who made victims, that is at least arguably not a very good thing.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
I voted "no" because the end does not justify the means, imo. The Europeans came over and basically stole property and lives from those who lived here first-- period. It's like if I came over to your house, took it over, and killed many in your family. How can that be justifiable?
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
When Columbus first arrived, the Caribs were just wrapping up a genocidal conquest of the Arawaks, Proudly displaying their skulls and keeping some alive for sex slaves and a fresh food supply
Contrary to Disney depictions, the natives were not spending all their time making daisy chains and choreographing song and dance routines!
I can't really think of any cons, it probably benefited the Indians more than anyone
It was the word "colonization" that caused me to vote no.
Had the Europeans approached what was, to them, the "discovery" in a spirit of cooperation and exchange the contact could have been a wonderful thing for the human family.
What they did instead is the greatest crime against humanity there has ever been. With the possible exception of other instances of colonial genocide and oppression.
Tom
Had the Europeans approached what was, to them, the "discovery" in a spirit of cooperation and exchange the contact could have been a wonderful thing for the human family.
What they did instead is the greatest crime against humanity there has ever been. With the possible exception of other instances of colonial genocide and oppression.
Tom
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
More "inevitable" than either good or bad. Measuring the ultimate subjectivity of good vs. bad based off of the countless millions of people affected over the course of centuries, is a speculative exercise at best.
I would vote 'inevitable' if that was a choice. The most materially successful groups have increased their range and control probably since there's been a mankind. It's brutal but eventually it leads to a higher material civization for the assimilated. I would choose my modern life over a more primitive one.
VioletVortex
Well-Known Member
That's a hard one for me. As a Nationalist, it would be hypocritical of me to see European colonization of America in a good light, but also, Europeans brought many advancements to America. From a military standpoint, I'd say we brought peace. Yes, we genocided the Native Americans, but their tribes were very belligerent towards each other. By colonizing America, we brought unity and peace to America. This would deteriorate with the coming of the Civil War, though.
Also, we are much more native to America than we before thought. Greenland and possibly parts of Canada and Northern America were colonized by Vikings, who arrived there three hundred years prior to the Inuit population.
Also, we are much more native to America than we before thought. Greenland and possibly parts of Canada and Northern America were colonized by Vikings, who arrived there three hundred years prior to the Inuit population.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Does that include what historians estimate as many as 40 million indigenous being killed in the Americas as a result of the European invasion and dominance? So, it's OK if I come into your house, kill members of your family, but then maybe give you some money so I can say you "benefited" from my actions?