111
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 82:
Line 82: + +
Debate:Was the European colonization of the Americas good for the native people? (view source)
Revision as of 03:12, May 23, 2008
, 03:12, May 23, 2008→Was the Roman colonization of Europe good for the native people?
There is absolutely no way of telling because the Roman Empire killed anyone opposed to their rule, man, woman, or child. Even Julius Ceaser. Rome didn't colonize Native European tribes and kingdoms. Rome conquered them.
There is absolutely no way of telling because the Roman Empire killed anyone opposed to their rule, man, woman, or child. Even Julius Ceaser. Rome didn't colonize Native European tribes and kingdoms. Rome conquered them.
~ Christos 01/27/08
~ Christos 01/27/08
completely different, 1) they didn't kill a significant portion of them with diseases 2) they let them live where they were living previously to a large extent 3) they didn't scalp them 4)yes the americas became westernized, but a large portion of the native americans weren't around to see it, and the ones who were lived on reservations. and yes it is quite obvious that the colonization of america was significantley worse (and even if the romans killed everyone opposed to their rule the colonizing europeans killed pretty much everybody). and by the way christos invasion isn't as bad as colonization (for the natives)-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 23:12, 22 May 2008 (EDT)
== Euro Colonization of the Americas: NO ==
== Euro Colonization of the Americas: NO ==