Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, Moderators, move, protect, rollback, Administrators
27,336
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 21:
Line 21: − − :Is that sarcasm? I honestly can't tell any more. − :(Edit: Read his comment below, and now I don't think it's sarcasm. Ick.) --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 21:21, 21 May 2007 (EDT) Line 44:
Line 41: − − Let's see... European colonists exterminated out 9/10ths of the American population, stole the survivors' land, broke just about every treaty made and did their level best to wipe out their religions. To this day, Indian reservations have just about the highest rates in the country for alcoholism and suicide. I can't imagine WHY they're not more grateful! </SARCASM> --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 21:26, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
Debate:Was the European colonization of the Americas good for the native people? (view source)
Revision as of 05:26, May 22, 2007
, 05:26, May 22, 2007Reverted edits by Gulik3 (Talk); changed back to last version by Stereophile
--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 14:12, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 14:12, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
==NO==
==NO==
Conservateur, moral equivocation doesn't make what colonists did either helpful, good, or justified in any way. Just because some of the tribes were at war with each other, or that they commited atrocities that "rivaled or even surpassed" those of the colonists, doesn't make it alright that we devastated them with disease, took any of their lands whatsoever, and commited any acts of violence for the goal of westward conquest. The fact is, colonists were the result of their decimated population, and the loss of their tribal lands, whether through sale or force, and that has to be recognized. And even if it was our intervention that stopped their warring (though clearly, that was not the goal when we set out to expand "our" country), it cost them more than any of their tribal conflics ever did. The natives got the short end of the bargain.--[[User:Stereophile|Stereophile]] 20:45, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
Conservateur, moral equivocation doesn't make what colonists did either helpful, good, or justified in any way. Just because some of the tribes were at war with each other, or that they commited atrocities that "rivaled or even surpassed" those of the colonists, doesn't make it alright that we devastated them with disease, took any of their lands whatsoever, and commited any acts of violence for the goal of westward conquest. The fact is, colonists were the result of their decimated population, and the loss of their tribal lands, whether through sale or force, and that has to be recognized. And even if it was our intervention that stopped their warring (though clearly, that was not the goal when we set out to expand "our" country), it cost them more than any of their tribal conflics ever did. The natives got the short end of the bargain.--[[User:Stereophile|Stereophile]] 20:45, 21 May 2007 (EDT)