Imperialism exposes backwardness?

[Elysian]

People often talk about imperialism in the past and present, from Spanish to British to American imperialism. But a curious fact. Doesnt imperialism expose the social backwardness of conquered nations - and doesn't this indirectly prove the logic of imperialists?

[Prometeo liberado]

If your measuring stick is the conquering country then still no. Imperialism by it's very nature must conquer underdeveloped nations. The need for cheap labor and underutilized natural resources defines the criteria used to label these countries as organizationally and economically "backwards". Imperialism meets conquered nations because of this so called "backwardness", not the other way around. A conquered country must go through it's national liberation phase in order to reach it's full economic and democratic potential, so no, imperialist logic is wrong.

[Franz Fanonipants]

holy shit pls ban op

[Lobotomy]

No, imperial powers use the idea of conquered peoples being "backward" to justify their actions.

[RGacky3]

Doesnt imperialism expose the social backwardness of conquered nations - and doesn't this indirectly prove the logic of imperialists?

How so? (you hav'nt made any arguments)

Unless violence is the measure of social development.

BTW, how in the hell can you call yourself a christian and hold ideas like that?

[#FF0000]

Doesnt imperialism expose the social backwardness of conquered nations

how

[hatzel]

It certainly doesn't expose anything, no. But the accusation of 'backwardness' (made by the colonialist-imperialist power itself, of course) is used in an attempt to 'prove the logic of imperialists,' yes. So you're kind of half-onto something (namely, the link between a perceived 'backwardness' and 'justification' for colonialism-imperialism), but you're overlooking the fact that this 'backwardness' is just a bullshit claim made by the colonialist-imperialist themselves so they can say they're running around 'civilising' 'barbarians' and other such niceties. Rather than just being great big meaniefaces. To use the official terminology.

[Elysian]

First of all, could people stop threatening other people with a ban? I am still learning, so I am asking questions. thank you.

When I say 'expose', I mean it in the following (crude) way: A invades B quite easily. It means B is militarily weak. Why? Because B sucks at managing resources and labor, maintaining law and order, establishing good culture, and so on. B is so pathetic when it comes to knowledge - so backward in culture - that it can't even build a military strong enough to deter a foreign force.

This is the argument I've heard. And I am wondering about it. Trying to learn about it. Hopefully, people don't attack me.:crying:

[RGacky3]

When I say 'expose', I mean it in the following (crude) way: A invades B quite easily. It means B is militarily weak. Why? Because B sucks at managing resources and labor, maintaining law and order, establishing good culture, and so on. B is so pathetic when it comes to knowledge - so backward in culture - that it can't even build a military strong enough to deter a foreign force.


Or maybe they just dont use all their resources and labor for military purposes because they value other things, or maybe they don't have the same access to military technology.

What your talking about is rediculous, and only valid if military might is the only measure of culture and society, which only a vile psychopath would cliam.

[Elysian]

Or maybe they just dont use all their resources and labor for military purposes because they value other things, or maybe they don't have the same access to military technology.


Yes, but historically that's never been the case.

[RGacky3]

Yes Historically it HAS always been the case, infact I would argue that many cultures had much superior social and cultural systems that were destroyed by people with stronger militaries.

Your simply judging culture and society by military might.

BTW, stop *****ing about people attacking you when you are holding a vile social-darwinist cultural chauvanist position. (and yet somehow call yourself a christian).

[roy]

I don't think this is a very complicated issue on the superficial level: it's unjustified to conquer other peoples. It doesn't matter if your people are more 'technologically advanced' or what have you. There's no objective measure of what makes a society 'good', but personally I would say it's not violence and conquest.

[Elysian]

Yes Historically it HAS always been the case, infact I would argue that many cultures had much superior social and cultural systems that were destroyed by people with stronger militaries.

Your simply judging culture and society by military might.

BTW, stop *****ing about people attacking you when you are holding a vile social-darwinist cultural chauvanist position. (and yet somehow call yourself a christian).

Europeans colonized the Americas where natives were making human sacrifices. Same goes for Africans, Hindus, and the aborigines in Australia. How will this fit into your view that native cultures were superior and therefore destroyed?

P.s.
These are not my views. I am playing the devil's advocate to learn more. Besides, I am not a christian anymore. I am a dawkinist, lol.

[RGacky3]

Europeans colonized the Americas where natives were making human sacrifices. Same goes for Africans, Hindus, and the aborigines in Australia. How will this fit into your view that native cultures were superior and therefore destroyed?


Yeah, one or 2 civilizations, many other ones were way more civilized, yet at the same time Europeans were Burning Witches.

BTW, I'm not saying that these cultures were superior and therefore destroyed, I'm saying it has nothing to do with it, I'm saying military might has nothing to do with the superiority or such of a culture, which btw is totally relative to how you judge them.

[l'Enfermé]

How so? (you hav'nt made any arguments)

Unless violence is the measure of social development.

BTW, how in the hell can you call yourself a christian and hold ideas like that?
Constantine the Great also called himself a Christian and he's a Saint now, and the guy punished adultery(it's only adultery if the woman is younger than 25 according to him)with death, and the parents of the adultereres who knew of the adultery but didn't report it with confiscation of all their property and exile, and servants who knew of the adultery with molten lead down their throats. Such views are not contradictory with Christianity, not since Christianity was adopted by the Roman Empire and completely changed it's nature.

[hatzel]

the guy punished adultery [...] with death

Hey aren't you the guy who keeps raging in threads about how terrible it is when religions aren't structured around the strict enforcement of monogamy? I thought that kind of stuff would be right up your alley...

[Franz Fanonipants]

Europeans colonized the Americas where natives were making human sacrifices. Same goes for Africans, Hindus, and the aborigines in Australia. How will this fit into your view that native cultures were superior and therefore destroyed?

P.s.
These are not my views. I am playing the devil's advocate to learn more. Besides, I am not a christian anymore. I am a dawkinist, lol.

cultures aren't relationally superior

just like being a "dawkinist" is not superior to being a christian, only a different epistemology. a shitty, science popularizing, imperialist epistemology but still just another epistemology.

[Yefim Zverev]

Why ban op ? With such questions we improve our rhetoric and agitation. Mine at least. Many people may think like op and you need a smart response to give to them.

[Franz Fanonipants]

First of all, could people stop threatening other people with a ban? I am still learning, so I am asking questions. thank you.

When I say 'expose', I mean it in the following (crude) way: A invades B quite easily. It means B is militarily weak. Why? Because B sucks at managing resources and labor, maintaining law and order, establishing good culture, and so on. B is so pathetic when it comes to knowledge - so backward in culture - that it can't even build a military strong enough to deter a foreign force.

stop using the language of oppressors and you won't get those calls

and you don't actually understand history

conquest is not made on military weakness, its made on opportunity and at the fringes of society. every single conquest and the expansion of imperialism occurs only contingently, not inevitably

the conquest of Mexico for example does not occur because the Triple Alliance is weak, the opposite is true in fact. the Triple Alliance won early battles against the Caxtiltecas (Spanish) and in fact drove the Caxtiltecas out of Tenochtitlan and forced them to recruit soldiers that were overwhelmingly more made up of the Nahuatl-speaking people they made lasting alliances with.

if we assume there is a Spanish superiority of arms (and really, that comes in the form of the horse) then why did the Spanish need to recruit thousands of Tlaxcalan allies and create a lasting legacy of Tlaxcalan-Spanish friendliness that lasts deep into the colonial period?

in fact, the conquests of Mexico, the Andes, and even the American Southwest as well as India, the American East Coast, and coastal Africa are all highly contingent affairs that utilize native armies and dynamics to reorder the situation for colonizers over the course of years-decades-centuries

the version of events you are choosing to represent as historical fact are those of the imperialists

you should probably think about banishing that view from your mind if you're going to go around calling yourself a Marxist

if you're really a "Dawkinsist" then go ahead and keep it as Dawkins and other secularists are great apologists for conquest

[Franz Fanonipants]

Why ban op ? With such questions we improve our rhetoric and agitation. Mine at least. Many people may think like op and you need a smart response to give to them.

because if someone came in here talking about how the Jews were inferior because they got holocaust'ed they would be banned immediately

[Lynx]

Imperialism exploits differences in technological development, and when that is not possible, imposes itself through military might.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Imperialism exploits differences in technological development, and when that is not possible, imposes itself through military might.

this is half of the way there

military might is pretty much never enough

instead, what imperialism does is negotiate its way in using technological supremacy to create systems of dependency. i wrote a shitty paper about the presidial system and northern expansion in New Spain. what i saw in the sources was a pattern of "peace settlements" with semi-sedentary Indians like Chichimecas and Apaches that rewarded parts of these corporate groups with items designed to create dependency, packs of cigarettes, refined sugar, linens that the peoples couldn't make on their own. if the dependency doesn't take, then, yeah, violence is used.

[#FF0000]

Europeans colonized the Americas where natives were making human sacrifices. Same goes for Africans, Hindus, and the aborigines in Australia. How will this fit into your view that native cultures were superior and therefore destroyed?

Uhhhhhhh Natives in the Americas had cities that were as large or larger than contemporary European cities and managed to figure out how to rig up a sanitation system that didn't flood the streets with shit every time rained unlike the Europeans.

[#FF0000]

oh i also want to point out that natives in America literally invented corn and taught european settlers what to farm and how to farm it when they were about to starve because they were in boats so long i guess they forgot how seeds and dirt worked.

[Franz Fanonipants]

oh i also want to point out that natives in America literally invented corn and taught european settlers what to farm and how to farm it when they were about to starve because they were in boats so long i guess they forgot how seeds and dirt worked.

the dudes in Jamestown were too busy trying to utilize european extractive practices to farm and the puritans up at plymouth (both jamestown and plymouth were both financed and funded by corporate charters btw) weren't really prepared to deal with a totally different biome/ecosystem that hadn't yet yielded to different practices

almost like their real goal wasn't to flex their technological or societal superiority hmmmmmm

e: also since op is now a dawkinsist i hold forth that all of the people involved were dirty theists and therefore inferior to the new, rational man of early 21st century capitalist reason

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

In terms of military might, yeah the victims of imperialism are of a lesser magnitude. That says nothing of the right or wrong of the situation, unless like me you have a problem with the strong bullying the weak.

But if it's backwardness the OP wants to talk about, remind me who it was that introduced homophobic laws to places like Uganda?

I doubt that's the only place where socially reactionary attitudes have been introduced under the aegis of imperialism.

[Franz Fanonipants]

In terms of military might, yeah the victims of imperialism are of a lesser magnitude.

still nope

Europeans in the Americas and Africa were afraid of/respected/familiar with the military strength of indigenous people.

in New Spain, the Spanish designs on filling in Tejas were overturned repeatedly by Comanche military strength. Europeans in Africa spent ~200 years hiding in coastal fortresses. the Maya have pretty much been autonomous against every empire/nation state arrayed against them.

what you're still telling is the imperialist's version of the story. on the frontiers and margins of empire there was a broader parity, unless you assert that Europeans had some kind of essential zeit[1] or something that overcame material conditions.

which i wouldn't put past a futurist.

e: [1] lol i meant geist and i meant you are still a nazi lover

[gorillafuck]

First of all, could people stop threatening other people with a ban? I am still learning, so I am asking questions. thank you.

When I say 'expose', I mean it in the following (crude) way: A invades B quite easily. It means B is militarily weak. Why? Because B sucks at managing resources and labor, maintaining law and order, establishing good culture, and so on. B is so pathetic when it comes to knowledge - so backward in culture - that it can't even build a military strong enough to deter a foreign force.aside from the military aspect, how would these things deter imperialism in any way at all?

the nazis were imperialists. would you say that their conquest proved they were culturally superior?

[Franz Fanonipants]

aside from solely military, how would these two things deter imperialism?

the nazis were imperialists. would you say that they had good culture or whatever?

worship of a culture is a part and parcel of people who uncritically talk about "memes"

[gorillafuck]

huh?

[Franz Fanonipants]

huh?

these guys see cultural forms as being bigger than material conditions. the imperialists described in the op are part of a superior, Western form that to them sadly but inevitably ate up inferior forms in their construction of how history works.

in reality, and using actual historical and social sciences methods, the process of imperial triumph was a lot more contingent, fractured, and negotiated than the simple idea of a culture absorbing another culture. this incorrect, modernist/idealist/liberal model of imperial expansion is encouraged by the fact that op and other "rationalists" are fully in love with the idea of cultures having forms, deficiencies, and strengths that can be identified as a broad idealist construct.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

still nope

Europeans in the Americas and Africa were afraid of/respected/familiar with the military strength of indigenous people.

in New Spain, the Spanish designs on filling in Tejas were overturned repeatedly by Comanche military strength.

By that time the Comanche had things like horses and firearms as a well-integrated part of their military forces, so no surprise.


Europeans in Africa spent ~200 years hiding in coastal fortresses.

You mean the continent where parasites and infectious agents have been involved longest in an evolutionary arms race with human biology? No wonder.

Also the primitive status of European logistics and medicine deserves consideration. It's hard to conquer a place when it's difficult to get large quantities of supplies anywhere and more of your men die from infection than enemy action.


the Maya have pretty much been autonomous against every empire/nation state arrayed against them.

Aren't they part of Mexico now?


what you're still telling is the imperialist's version of the story. on the frontiers and margins of empire there was a broader parity, unless you assert that Europeans had some kind of essential zeit[1] or something that overcame material conditions.

which i wouldn't put past a futurist.

Well, they won, didn't they? I know the diseases the Europeans brought along helped them a great deal, but I'm unsure how much of that was deliberate spread or not. A greater proportion of deliberate infection would display a greater awareness of the strategic role that bioweapons can play. On the other hand, if the spread of European diseases was mostly incidental, then nature gets the "credit" such as it is.

In either case, being a military victor is not the same thing as being a moral victor.


e: [1] lol i meant geist and i meant you are still a nazi lover

Nazi lover? Then why am I not banned, fool?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

these guys see cultural forms as being bigger than material conditions. the imperialists described in the op are part of a superior, Western form that to them sadly but inevitably ate up inferior forms in their construction of how history works.

Uh, wrong. I don't see "Western" societies as some kind of monolithic group.


in reality, and using actual historical and social sciences methods, the process of imperial triumph was a lot more contingent, fractured, and negotiated than the simple idea of a culture absorbing another culture. this incorrect, modernist/idealist/liberal model of imperial expansion is encouraged by the fact that op and other "rationalists" are fully in love with the idea of cultures having forms, deficiencies, and strengths that can be identified as a broad idealist construct.

I don't have a "model" of imperialist expansion, either.

I have a letter here from the strawmen. They're asking when the torture will stop...

[Franz Fanonipants]

Well, they won, didn't they?

nope

[Franz Fanonipants]

Nazi lover? Then why am I not banned, fool?

i've often ruminated on it but have no answer

[Genghis]

Imperialism is part of human nature. We are all the descendents of those who successfully took over fertile land and warm caves, expelling/killing the previous owners who left no descendents.

That does not mean that we should not condemn imperialism. It is something common to all of humanity.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Imperialism is part of human nature. We are all the descendents of those who successfully took over fertile land and warm caves, expelling/killing the previous owners who left no descendents.

also

nope

imperialism is a v. historically particular phenomena

[RGacky3]

Imperialism is part of human nature.

Not according to people that actually study these things, i.e. anthropologists and the such.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

nope

Then why did the Comanche and the Maya end up getting absorbed into larger countries populated mainly by people of European descent?

You have a strange definition of winning and losing.


i've often ruminated on it but have no answer

Maybe it's because in actual fact, you cannot find a single line of text authored by me that could be construed by anyone sane as being in support of the Nazis?

But little things like that obviously haven't stopped you from throwing around baseless smears in the hope that one of them sticks!

[Franz Fanonipants]

Then why did the Comanche and the Maya end up getting absorbed into larger countries populated mainly by people of European descent?

You have a strange definition of winning and losing.

surviving and forcing the colonizers to work on your terms on the local level (which the Comanche do well into the nineteenth century, and continue to survive today and the Maya continue to do regardless of Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Mexico being drawn over them) counts as winning in my book.

but then again, maybe looking at history in a win-lose continuum itself is problematic comrade. could be a problem w/your hilarious futurism.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

surviving and forcing the colonizers to work on your terms on the local level (which the Comanche do well into the nineteenth century, and continue to survive today and the Maya continue to do regardless of Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Mexico being drawn over them) counts as winning in my book.

Being driven/reduced to reservations and/or marginal areas is a better outcome than complete genocide and total cultural extirpation, sure.

But as successes go, it looks rather pyrrhic to me.


but then again, maybe looking at history in a win-lose continuum itself is problematic comrade. could be a problem w/your hilarious futurism.

It's only "problematic" if you automatically associate "winning" in the strategic sense with "being correct" in any other sense. If I'm in an argument with someone, and one of us resorts to violence at some point, that does not mean the aggressor was right in their arguments, even if they prevail over the target of their aggression.

[Franz Fanonipants]

But as successes go, it looks rather pyrrhic to me.

as a white briton i'm sure it does

[Franz Fanonipants]

as to the rest, no one is talking about "right or wrong"

when it comes to this shit, it is literally about survival. surviving in the face of imperialist expansion between 1500 - 1900 is pretty huge. sorry bro. if you survive, you "win."

again, winning or losing is a very stupid position to perform historical inquiry from. so even my prior point is pretty stupid.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

as a white briton i'm sure it does

If pre-Columbian peoples had the ability to see into the future and knew what was to become of them, I'm pretty sure the reaction would be mostly negative rather than jubilant.

They had civilisations, built up over centuries by the blood, sweat and tears of generations of people. Is there any estimation of how much has been lost?

[Franz Fanonipants]

If pre-Columbian peoples had the ability to see into the future and knew what was to become of them, I'm pretty sure the reaction would be mostly negative rather than jubilant.

They had civilisations, built up over centuries by the blood, sweat and tears of generations of people. Is there any estimation of how much has been lost?

depends on how you look at it i guess

because honestly, i don't see it as loss. indigenous people are not simple losers shuffling off the stage of history. they reacted, redefined themselves, acculturated in some places, dominated in others.

those civilizations you are talking about changed. some may have disappeared entirely, some might be disappearing. but its way more complex than what you're presenting.

for example the pueblo people of the central rio grande valley are now mostly catholic. in many of the pueblos, their religions are not what they were 600 years ago. but their religion is still practiced. their culture products, commercialized well before the American invasion, are also changed but they are still their cultural products.

navajos herd sheep. nahuatl speakers drive cars.

what is a loss and what is just a process of being?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

as to the rest, no one is talking about "right or wrong"

when it comes to this shit, it is literally about survival. surviving in the face of imperialist expansion between 1500 - 1900 is pretty huge. sorry bro. if you survive, you "win."

again, winning or losing is a very stupid position to perform historical inquiry from. so even my prior point is pretty stupid.

Doesn't that depend on the nature of the historical enquiry in question?

[Franz Fanonipants]

Doesn't that depend on the nature of the historical enquiry in question?

i guess it could. i mean basically my thesis is in a way about a major "loss." but i wouldn't put it in those terms because it casts my thesis into a tragic arc kind of teleology.

that would take away from the "losers" ability to acclimate to the change and their new position in the changing regime of agriculture in the Arid West. which they did, without question.

does that make sense?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

depends on how you look at it i guess

because honestly, i don't see it as loss. indigenous people are not simple losers shuffling off the stage of history. they reacted, redefined themselves, acculturated in some places, dominated in others.

those civilizations you are talking about changed. some may have disappeared entirely, some might be disappearing. but its way more complex than what you're presenting.

for example the pueblo people of the central rio grande valley are now mostly catholic. in many of the pueblos, their religions are not what they were 600 years ago. but their religion is still practiced. their culture products, commercialized well before the American invasion, are also changed but they are still their cultural products.

navajos herd sheep. nahuatl speakers drive cars.

what is a loss and what is just a process of being?

It bothers me. Ancient peoples were just as curious about the universe as we are today, and while they may not have had the tools and knowledge we have now, a combination of various contingent historical and geographical factors gave them a unique perspective, which they promulgated orally and verbally. My understanding is that in the case of pre-colonial civilisations in the Americas, much of the the written records of those civilisations were destroyed, and it doesn't seem too much of a stretch to conclude that much oral knowledge was also lost along with the people that held it.


i guess it could. i mean basically my thesis is in a way about a major "loss." but i wouldn't put it in those terms because it casts my thesis into a tragic arc kind of teleology.

that would take away from the "losers" ability to acclimate to the change and their new position in the changing regime of agriculture in the Arid West. which they did, without question.

does that make sense?

Yes it does.

All I can say is that your use of the word "teleology" suggests some kind of overriding goal/function/endpoint to history. I don't know about you, but I personally don't see history in that way. When I talk of progress, I don't intend to mean some kind of historical inevitability that is fated to roll eternally forwards and up, with no reversals in any time or place. That would be an ahistorical view. Progress, whether scientific or social, is the product of humans acting (an indeterminate proportion of them consciously so) within and interacting with society and the environment. Most people have some sense of fairness and right or wrong, and that's a good start, but not enough to change society permanently for the better, hence the importance of conscious political agents for progressive social change.

[Franz Fanonipants]

why does it seem like a stretch that oral versions of written works wouldn't survive?

and the thing i'm saying is the version of history that you're presenting is an unavoidable slide into a present future with indigenous/colonized peoples just kind of on a roller coaster of terror and loss.

which is patently not true.

[l'Enfermé]

Cortes conquered Mexico with 500 Spaniards, Pizarro overthrew the Incas with 200. Does Imperialism expose backwardness? To an extent, yes.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Cortes conquered Mexico with 500 Spaniards, Pizarro overthrew the Incas with 200. Does Imperialism expose backwardness? To an extent, yes.

oh my fucking god

Cortes conquered Mexico with ~500 "Spaniards" and upwards of 1,000 Tlaxcalans[1]

Pizarro overthrew the Inka after a ~decade long civil war and outbreaks of smallpox

fuck off white supremacist pigfucker

[1] and when we say Mexico we mean a v. specific, geographically small portion of the valley of Mexico ruled by Nahuatl-speakers out of Tenochtitlan. you aren't accounting for the Purepucha/Huichol conquest, the Mayan wars in the south, the Chichimeca wars on the plateau northeast of Mexico (again referring specifically to the valley). you've basically managed to take history and make it so simplistic that you can crow about "backwardness."

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

why does it seem like a stretch that oral versions of written works wouldn't survive?

I mean to say that I don't know how much oral stuff was lost, but it seems reasonable to conclude that a lot would have been lost thanks the people holding it in their heads dying or otherwise being seperated from their culture. I understand it was a common practice to basically kidnap children and raise them in a Christianised environment.


and the thing i'm saying is the version of history that you're presenting is an unavoidable slide into a present future with indigenous/colonized peoples just kind of on a roller coaster of terror and loss.

which is patently not true.

If it was possible to rewind history and start it again then I'm sure there would be differences, possibly depending on how far back one "rewinds". Otherwise I don't feel qualified to say what those differences would be without reading a hell of a lot more history than I do now.

[Franz Fanonipants]

I mean to say that I don't know how much oral stuff was lost, but it seems reasonable to conclude that a lot would have been lost thanks the people holding it in their heads dying or otherwise being seperated from their culture. I understand it was a common practice to basically kidnap children and raise them in a Christianised environment.

Not universally. I think you need to read some stuff about the Conquest. I'd recommend starting off w/1491, then Stolen Continent, then check out Malintzin's Choices for the very real complexities of culture in the post-conquest period.

Its very easy to take this received historical narrative of total Indian cultural/numerical obliteration. The reality is very different.

[l'Enfermé]

oh my fucking god

Cortes conquered Mexico with ~500 "Spaniards" and upwards of 1,000 Tlaxcalans[1]

Pizarro overthrew the Inka after a ~decade long civil war and outbreaks of smallpox

fuck off white supremacist pigfucker

[1] and when we say Mexico we mean a v. specific, geographically small portion of the valley of Mexico ruled by Nahuatl-speakers out of Tenochtitlan. you aren't accounting for the Purepucha/Huichol conquest, the Mayan wars in the south, the Chichimeca wars on the plateau northeast of Mexico (again referring specifically to the valley). you've basically managed to take history and make it so simplistic that you can crow about "backwardness."
Well I'm not white nor am I a white supremacist, I'm not even Indo-European.

Though, are you going to deny the technological and cultural backwardness of the indigenous Americans, compared to the European conquerors?

[Franz Fanonipants]

Well I'm not white nor am I a white supremacist, I'm not even Indo-European.

Though, are you going to deny the technological and cultural backwardness of the indigenous Americans, compared to the European conquerors?

every single fucking day, white supremacist

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Its very easy to take this received historical narrative of total Indian cultural/numerical obliteration. The reality is very different.

Maybe because it's where I live, but I don't ever recall getting the impression that the conquest (total or otherwise) of the Americas was anything to boast about.

On the other hand, the conduct of the British Empire has been whitewashed, mainly through sheer obscurity - there was no indication during the school history lessons (that I can remember) of any of the kind of things I would learn about the British Empire in the history books I read after leaving school. It was mainly World War Two, where Brave Brits battled that historical symbol of Ultimate Evil, the Nazis. I'm paraphrasing obviously but that's certainly the kind of narrative that my school history lessons can foster.

[Stadtsmasher]

Technically, imperialism is a stage of capitalism, and capitalism is a step higher than feudalism (although a step lower than socialism). So it might be argued that an introduction of capitalism to third-world countries is a kind of step up if they have feudal systems.

Its not really an argument I would make, though. I tend to follow the Maoist line and believe it is possible for third-world nations to skip directly to socialism without going through a capitalist phase.

[marksist-leninist]

rule of capitalism: inequality. Imperialism (and monopoly capitalism) cannot work unless large new-colonial countrys in "third world" be "backwardness" by itself.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Maybe because it's where I live, but I don't ever recall getting the impression that the conquest (total or otherwise) of the Americas was anything to boast about.

no, of course not. it isn't. it's a story about genocide, paternalism, horrible diseases, greed, capital accumulation, slavery, etc.

but there are other things going on within that narrative. indians are not always on the losing end. the Tlaxcalans, a Nahuatl-speaking (the same language as the "Aztecs") people, were carted around as "good Indians" by the Spanish as far north as Santa Fe. nahuatl and Tlaxcalans were intended to be the lingua franca/personal chains of the Republica de los Indios or Republic of the Indians which stood alone as its own legislative and bureaucratic (as well as culture) component in the Spanish empire. not to lionize the Spanish, but that gives you an idea of the complexities of the whole deal.

and lets not even get into Cortez's Indian son.

[Franz Fanonipants]

rule of capitalism: inequality. Imperialism (and monopoly capitalism) cannot work unless large new-colonial countrys in "third world" be "backwardness" by itself.

i wish i could thank this post more than once

[marksist-leninist]

i wish i could thank this post more than once

excuse me??? I have not advanced English. so, in this part i possibly had a gramer mistake : " ...large new-colonial countrys in "third world" be "backwardness" by itself"
but i think i could express my idea. this is a dialectical reality that if imperialist western countrys is developed now, this is because of "backwardness" of "third world" by monopolistic capitalism.

[l'Enfermé]

every single fucking day, white supremacist
I'm not even white how can I be a white supremacist? What's wrong with you? I guess you're a Brown Supremacist. What are you gonna say about that, huh? Huh? But seriously, accusing me, a North Caucasian, of being a white supremacist, is fucking ridiculous. You need to find a better argument.

[Franz Fanonipants]

I'm not even white how can I be a white supremacist? What's wrong with you? I guess you're a Brown Supremacist. What are you gonna say about that, huh? Huh? But seriously, accusing me, a North Caucasian, of being a white supremacist, is fucking ridiculous. You need to find a better argument.

all this talking to justify the fact that you just spat out a white supremacist narrative completely unqualified and unthinkingly gtfo comrade

[l'Enfermé]

all this talking to justify the fact that you just spat out a white supremacist narrative completely unqualified and unthinkingly gtfo comrade
Yeah, Iberians and Italians are really fucking white man. Especially with all that Maghreb/Arab blood.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Yeah, Iberians and Italians are really fucking white man. Especially with all that Maghreb/Arab blood.

if you have a white supremacist conception of history idgaf if you are nigerian you are a white supremacist

[Franz Fanonipants]

excuse me??? I have not advanced English. so, in this part i possibly had a gramer mistake : " ...large new-colonial countrys in "third world" be "backwardness" by itself"
but i think i could express my idea. this is a dialectical reality that if imperialist western countrys is developed now, this is because of "backwardness" of "third world" by monopolistic capitalism.

it means i agree with it and like it

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Well I'm not white nor am I a white supremacist, I'm not even Indo-European.

I think Franz's issue is that you are repeating a narrative that, in the best possible interpretation, is a gross over-simplification of history. If nothing else, it completely ignores the roles that diseases and indigenous peoples played in the colonialisation of the Americas. Civil wars and newly introduced diseases can seriously weaken a hegemon.


Though, are you going to deny the technological and cultural backwardness of the indigenous Americans, compared to the European conquerors?

Cultural backwardness? Please elaborate, as this is the first I've heard of it.

[RGacky3]

Though, are you going to deny the technological and cultural backwardness of the indigenous Americans, compared to the European conquerors?

As Noxion says, Cultural backwardness is'nt a thing, also it does'nt even make sense, Cultures are not better or worse, it just depends on waht guage your judging it by.

Aparently some here judge it by its violence.

As far as technology, yeah, europeans had better technology ... And what?


Yeah, Iberians and Italians are really fucking white man. Especially with all that Maghreb/Arab blood.

What makes you white is that you are treated as white in a society with white priviledge, not your actual genetic make up.


Cortes conquered Mexico with 500 Spaniards, Pizarro overthrew the Incas with 200. Does Imperialism expose backwardness? To an extent, yes.

Again, your ONLY judge of progress seams to be the ability to murder people ...

[pastradamus]

Cortes conquered Mexico with 500 Spaniards, Pizarro overthrew the Incas with 200. Does Imperialism expose backwardness? To an extent, yes.

You are talking about an entire continent cut off from the rest of the world, one with much more limited resorces and divided into ethnic tribes and groups who were constantly warring with one another. The europeans had the advantage of Swords, Horses and armour, advanced ships etc. They also had the advantage of the immune system they had and the disease's they carried with them.

War is not the basis of civilisation. But if you want to talk about war...

Pizzaro's men were paid in how much they could pillage and loot. The incan tribes were paid in food, money and had one of the earliest professional armies in existance. They built enormous cities that would have rivialed anything in Europe and did surprisingly well with what limited resorces they had compared to Europe and Asia.