7 ms·
> Why not everyone assimilate? Yes, exactly, why not the USians assimilate into the many Native nations they occupy? They've had literal centuries...
by thex10 6y ago
> Why not everyone assimilate?
Yes, exactly, why not the USians assimilate into the many Native nations they occupy? They've had literal centuries...
- umvi 6y agoNative Americans had wars and conquered each other for millennia before white man came. It wasn't some unified utopia in the Americas like Pocahontas leads you to believe. It was a huge cycle of tribalism, conquering each other, and bloodshed. So... because they were conquering each other first, a technologically superior entity isn't allowed to conquer them?
- Mangalor 6y agoI mean if we're getting into it, "white man" basically genocided their whole population with disease. The Native Americans never did anything nearly so heinous.
- dudul 6y agoI'm not sure I understand your comment. If the genocide happened due to diseases imported from the Old World, how is it "heinous"? It happened at a time where people had no clue what diseases and immune systems were.
- Mangalor 6y agoWhether or not they knew they were transporting disease at the time really doesn't excuse the end result: mass genocide. And of course this doesn't authorize taking land.
- dudul 6y agoIt totally excuses it. Intent is key. If you have no clue what a disease, a virus, an immune system are I don't see how you can be called "heinous" for unknowingly and unwillingly spread diseases. As for lands, I don't know, lands all over the world have been changing hands since human beings learnt how to walk, most of the time after violence/war. It happened in 1500 when the concept of "nation" didn't even exist and the only way to say that a land was yours was to be able to keep it.
- umvi 6y agoWell, then China is responsible for mass genocide due to Covid-19 then. After all, whether or not they knew they were transporting disease to other countries 6 months back really doesn't excuse the end result.
- sulam 6y agoI dispute your characterization that people had no clue. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Fort_Pitt#Biological_warfare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Fort_Pitt#Biological_...
- dudul 6y agoBut that happened in the 18th century though, by then of course, empirical observation had played its role and a few people tried to weaponize it. I'm pretty sure accidental contamination during the 2 preceding centuries had already caused a massive decline in population.
- robertlagrant 6y agoI don't think accidental genocide is a thing.
- Mangalor 6y agoGenocide, accidental or not, is surely still a thing.
- JoeAltmaier 6y agoThere was some parity in their conflicts, they had relative stability for thousands of years. The coming of Europeans was definitely a major disruption, to the amount of maybe 100M dead in a few years. Of course back then Might made Right. Aren't we able to see a little further than that any more?
- gowld 6y agoMight makes Right gave way to White makes Right.
- thex10 6y agoWow, this response is projecting a whole lot onto my comment. My only reply in turn is, no, I don’t believe an entity should be “allowed” (by whom?) to conquer a nation in violation with their agreement just because they happen to have different technological capabilities
- dang 6y agoYour comment upthread was unsubstantive flamebait to begin with, so it's not surprising it got a flamewar response. Please don't do this on HN. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- minerjoe 6y agoEh, better learn you some history, and not just the "history" written by the conquerors. Your argument is the standard, and ignorant, response. "They were violent TOO!". The nature of Native American "War" was generally of a completely different nature than the white man take.