4 ms·

> but in the Western Europe and North America continuity of government was maintained. Empires fell during this time in western europe. And we had a civil war

> but in the Western Europe and North America continuity of government was maintained. Empires fell during this time in western europe. And we had a civil war in the US. > Let's use US as an example of well managed industrialization and social upheaval with small number of casualties. You forgot the mass extermination of natives in the US due primarily to industrialization. And the civil war which was bloodier than all the other wars we participated in combined. The nations first to industrialize benefited immensely at the expense of others. But it was extremely bloody in the US as well.

DamnYuppie 9y ago
Can you elaborate further on how the extermination of the natives was driven by industrialization. Having lived and traveled all over the west it is predominately, agrarian, large tracts given over for cattle. I believe their extermination had less to do with industrialization and more to do with taking the land.
- digikata 9y ago
  I'm not pushing for any particular interpretation here, but that cattle process could be viewed as early industrialized animal production made possible by the railroad. Graze in open areas, drive a bunch a cattle to centralized markets for transport/slaughter.
- eighthnate 9y ago
  > I believe their extermination had less to do with industrialization and more to do with taking the land. Industrialization is what prompted and allwed ships to bring millions of europeans to the US. It's what allowed railroads to ship millions to the midwest and the west. And of course the desire for oil/resources and farmland/etc. Industrialization is what allowed our armies to wipe out and clear the natives west of the mississippi.
ZoeZoeBee 9y ago
The vast majority of the decimation of the Native American population took place before the industrial revolution.
learc83 9y ago
By the time the industrial revolution started the Native population had already been devastated by disease. The Native Americans whose land we took were post-apocalyptic survivors--their civilizations were a shadow of what they were before the old world diseases wiped them out. >And the civil war which was bloodier than all the other wars we participated in combined. Only because the causalities from both sides count as American casualties, and because we developed better medical treatment and sanitation technology. Far more civil war soldiers died of disease than combat, which was mitigated in later wars through advanced technology. The number of US combat deaths was higher in WWII.
- eighthnate 9y ago
  > By the time the industrial revolution started the Native population had already been devastated by disease. The Native Americans whose land we took were post-apocalyptic survivors--their civilizations were a shadow of what they were before the old world diseases wiped them out. This is an oft-repeated genocide denial. Yes, disease killed many natives but that's not what committed genocide against the natives and stole their land. This is the same genocidal denial peddled by some who want to excuse nazis by claiming the jews died of disease in the holocaust. > Only because the causalities from both sides count as American casualties, and because we developed better medical treatment and sanitation technology. What's your point? Dead is dead. Should they not be counted? > Far more civil war soldiers died of disease than combat This is the case in most wars. Not just the civil war. Most of the deaths in ww2 were due to disease/starvation/etc rather than combat. Should we not count those?
  - learc83 9y ago
    >This is an oft-repeated genocide denial. Yes, disease killed many natives but that's not what committed genocide against the natives and stole their land. The current consensus is that disease was the primary cause of depopulation. Perhaps you should read some of the current work in the field. That doesn't change the fact that European colonists conquered and subjugated the remaining Native population. >This is the same genocidal denial peddled by some who want to excuse nazis by claiming the jews died of disease in the holocaust. Nonsense. You're going against the scholarly consensus here--just like holocaust deniers. >This is the case in most wars. Not just the civil war. Most of the deaths in ww2 were due to disease/starvation/etc rather than combat. Should we not count those? You held up the Civil War as an exemplar of terrible wars, saying that it was "bloodier than all the other wars we participated in combined". The implication is that it was somehow worse than other wars. The point is that this is a useless comparison to make and taken out of context you can draw conclusions that don't fit the facts. Previous wars were less bloody because they involved fewer combatants. Later wars were less bloody because we developed new sanitation techniques. And ww2 was much worse in terms of civilian casualties. You can't really draw conclusions about the time period or the social upheaval caused by the industrial revolution based on civil war casualty numbers.

DamnYuppie 9y ago

Can you elaborate further on how the extermination of the natives was driven by industrialization. Having lived and traveled all over the west it is predominately, agrarian, large tracts given over for cattle. I believe their extermination had less to do with industrialization and more to do with taking the land.

digikata 9y ago
I'm not pushing for any particular interpretation here, but that cattle process could be viewed as early industrialized animal production made possible by the railroad. Graze in open areas, drive a bunch a cattle to centralized markets for transport/slaughter.
eighthnate 9y ago
> I believe their extermination had less to do with industrialization and more to do with taking the land. Industrialization is what prompted and allwed ships to bring millions of europeans to the US. It's what allowed railroads to ship millions to the midwest and the west. And of course the desire for oil/resources and farmland/etc. Industrialization is what allowed our armies to wipe out and clear the natives west of the mississippi.

ZoeZoeBee 9y ago

The vast majority of the decimation of the Native American population took place before the industrial revolution.

learc83 9y ago

By the time the industrial revolution started the Native population had already been devastated by disease. The Native Americans whose land we took were post-apocalyptic survivors--their civilizations were a shadow of what they were before the old world diseases wiped them out. >And the civil war which was bloodier than all the other wars we participated in combined. Only because the causalities from both sides count as American casualties, and because we developed better medical treatment and sanitation technology. Far more civil war soldiers died of disease than combat, which was mitigated in later wars through advanced technology. The number of US combat deaths was higher in WWII.

eighthnate 9y ago
> By the time the industrial revolution started the Native population had already been devastated by disease. The Native Americans whose land we took were post-apocalyptic survivors--their civilizations were a shadow of what they were before the old world diseases wiped them out. This is an oft-repeated genocide denial. Yes, disease killed many natives but that's not what committed genocide against the natives and stole their land. This is the same genocidal denial peddled by some who want to excuse nazis by claiming the jews died of disease in the holocaust. > Only because the causalities from both sides count as American casualties, and because we developed better medical treatment and sanitation technology. What's your point? Dead is dead. Should they not be counted? > Far more civil war soldiers died of disease than combat This is the case in most wars. Not just the civil war. Most of the deaths in ww2 were due to disease/starvation/etc rather than combat. Should we not count those?
- learc83 9y ago
  >This is an oft-repeated genocide denial. Yes, disease killed many natives but that's not what committed genocide against the natives and stole their land. The current consensus is that disease was the primary cause of depopulation. Perhaps you should read some of the current work in the field. That doesn't change the fact that European colonists conquered and subjugated the remaining Native population. >This is the same genocidal denial peddled by some who want to excuse nazis by claiming the jews died of disease in the holocaust. Nonsense. You're going against the scholarly consensus here--just like holocaust deniers. >This is the case in most wars. Not just the civil war. Most of the deaths in ww2 were due to disease/starvation/etc rather than combat. Should we not count those? You held up the Civil War as an exemplar of terrible wars, saying that it was "bloodier than all the other wars we participated in combined". The implication is that it was somehow worse than other wars. The point is that this is a useless comparison to make and taken out of context you can draw conclusions that don't fit the facts. Previous wars were less bloody because they involved fewer combatants. Later wars were less bloody because we developed new sanitation techniques. And ww2 was much worse in terms of civilian casualties. You can't really draw conclusions about the time period or the social upheaval caused by the industrial revolution based on civil war casualty numbers.