15 ms·

Those "tremendous natural resources" were all the result of the Indian wars. America was at war nearly constantly expanding its empire from 1775-1865. Surely y

Those "tremendous natural resources" were all the result of the Indian wars. America was at war nearly constantly expanding its empire from 1775-1865. Surely you didn't think north America was terra nullis or that the natives just willingly gave away all those natural resources to European colonists? Anglo-Powhatan Wars (3 separate wars), Pequot War, Kieft's War, Peach Tree War, Esopus Wars, King Philip's War, Tuscarora War, Yamasee War, Dummer's War, Pontiac's War, Lord Dunmore's War, Cherokee-American Wars, Northwest Indian War, the Creek War, First and Second Seminole Wars, Texas-Indian Wars, Comanche-Mexico War, Cayuse War, Rogue River Wars, Yakima War, Puget Sound War, Spokane War, Snake War, Nez Perce War, Bannock War, Sheepeater Indian War, Navajo Wars, Yuma War, Mohave War, Apache Wars, Black Hawk War, Yavapai Wars, California Indian Wars, Walker War, Paiute War, Goshute War, White River War, Red Cloud's War, Colorado War, Great Sioux War, Dakota War.... And I'm sure I'm leaving a bunch out. The US is definitely built on the spoils of war.

SR2Z 6y ago
"Spoils of war" implies some degree of active, ongoing conquest beyond the borders of a nation, but the United States has relied almost entirely on resources within its own borders to gain its power. You could say that America was "expanding its empire" but there was not substantial growth after the Gadsden purchase and most of the growth of universities (and the bulk of American power) came much later. Attributing research and production to the spoils of wars fought nearly a century ago is kind of a reach.
- spats1990 6y ago
  "Spoils of war" on Wikipedia redirects to "war looting" or: "A prize of war is a piece of enemy property or land seized by a belligerent party during or after a war or battle, typically at sea." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prize_of_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prize_of_war >but the United States has relied almost entirely on resources within its own borders to gain its power. How did it attain control of those resources? You haven't addressed the parent's point.
pdonis 6y ago
> the natives just willingly gave away all those natural resources The native Americans didn't even know about most of the natural resources, and what they did know about, they mostly didn't make any use of. That's a big part of why they ended up losing the wars against the European settlers: the latter actually turned those resources into wealth.
- 8bitsrule 6y ago
  That blanket statement holds no water. Apart from -great- cultural differences - e.g. respect for nature - indigenous Americans had -a lot- of knowledge about their world, and how to care for it. May we have time to catch up with that knowledge.
  - pdonis 6y ago
    > Apart from -great- cultural differences - e.g. respect for nature You can respect nature and still make use of natural resources. Even if native Americans did the former (see below--some did but many did not), they fell far short on the latter. There were many natural resources in the US that native Americans never made any use of, and European settlers did. This is an example of the more general fact that the native Americans did not build very much wealth, while European settlers built much, much more. The native American cultures would never have built the medium through which we are having this discussion, for example. Or modern medicine, or modern sanitation, or all of the other things that have led to a huge increase in both average length and average quality of life. > indigenous Americans had -a lot- of knowledge about their world, and how to care for it. Perhaps some did. Many did not. Travel around the US Southwest and see how many sites there are where native American tribes lived and either died out or had to move on because they had mismanaged the local resources to the point where those resources could no longer support the tribe.
  - 0xBDB 6y ago
    Unfortunately this isn't the case. The Pleistocene North American mass extinction, which wiped out the saber-toothed tiger and North American mastodon, was a result of hunting pressure about 10,000 years ago. The positive stereotypes you are selling aren't real. They're largely the product of Hollywood (e.g. the "Crying Indian" ads), just like the negative stereotypes of the same peoples. Native Americans are people; given the opportunity they wreck nature, and once given guns and horses they stepped up their hunting of buffalo, for example, to levels that would have been unsustainable even if white people hadn't been killing the Buffalo off at far greater rates at the same time.
8bitsrule 6y ago
Amen that. Speaking of resource-extraction, I'll just add-in US history in South America for over a century. There the wars were, and still are, fought by the dictators against their own people. For example, Thatcher's 'friend' Pinochet.

SR2Z 6y ago

"Spoils of war" implies some degree of active, ongoing conquest beyond the borders of a nation, but the United States has relied almost entirely on resources within its own borders to gain its power. You could say that America was "expanding its empire" but there was not substantial growth after the Gadsden purchase and most of the growth of universities (and the bulk of American power) came much later. Attributing research and production to the spoils of wars fought nearly a century ago is kind of a reach.

spats1990 6y ago
"Spoils of war" on Wikipedia redirects to "war looting" or: "A prize of war is a piece of enemy property or land seized by a belligerent party during or after a war or battle, typically at sea." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prize_of_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prize_of_war >but the United States has relied almost entirely on resources within its own borders to gain its power. How did it attain control of those resources? You haven't addressed the parent's point.

pdonis 6y ago

> the natives just willingly gave away all those natural resources The native Americans didn't even know about most of the natural resources, and what they did know about, they mostly didn't make any use of. That's a big part of why they ended up losing the wars against the European settlers: the latter actually turned those resources into wealth.

8bitsrule 6y ago
That blanket statement holds no water. Apart from -great- cultural differences - e.g. respect for nature - indigenous Americans had -a lot- of knowledge about their world, and how to care for it. May we have time to catch up with that knowledge.
- pdonis 6y ago
  > Apart from -great- cultural differences - e.g. respect for nature You can respect nature and still make use of natural resources. Even if native Americans did the former (see below--some did but many did not), they fell far short on the latter. There were many natural resources in the US that native Americans never made any use of, and European settlers did. This is an example of the more general fact that the native Americans did not build very much wealth, while European settlers built much, much more. The native American cultures would never have built the medium through which we are having this discussion, for example. Or modern medicine, or modern sanitation, or all of the other things that have led to a huge increase in both average length and average quality of life. > indigenous Americans had -a lot- of knowledge about their world, and how to care for it. Perhaps some did. Many did not. Travel around the US Southwest and see how many sites there are where native American tribes lived and either died out or had to move on because they had mismanaged the local resources to the point where those resources could no longer support the tribe.
- 0xBDB 6y ago
  Unfortunately this isn't the case. The Pleistocene North American mass extinction, which wiped out the saber-toothed tiger and North American mastodon, was a result of hunting pressure about 10,000 years ago. The positive stereotypes you are selling aren't real. They're largely the product of Hollywood (e.g. the "Crying Indian" ads), just like the negative stereotypes of the same peoples. Native Americans are people; given the opportunity they wreck nature, and once given guns and horses they stepped up their hunting of buffalo, for example, to levels that would have been unsustainable even if white people hadn't been killing the Buffalo off at far greater rates at the same time.

8bitsrule 6y ago

Amen that. Speaking of resource-extraction, I'll just add-in US history in South America for over a century. There the wars were, and still are, fought by the dictators against their own people. For example, Thatcher's 'friend' Pinochet.