American Indians Colonize the Old world in 1250 BC

Thomas Bowman said:

So what do you say the settler's motivation was then, to make human sacrifices to the Devil? Did they just like to fill Indians full of holes. So what exactly turned them into evil monsters that wanted to kill kill kill?

Click to expand...

Thomas Bowman said:

Alright, so American settlers went west so they could wipe out Indians because they liked killing people so much, and they were all evil! Is that what you are trying to say?

Click to expand...

My understanding is that they wanted the land, and were prepared to drive other people away to get it. That's what happened - to varying but in all cases significant degrees - in Australia, in the "white highlands" in Kenya, in South Africa, in New Zealand.

What their moral and political theory was that allowed them to justify this to themselves varied from place to place and epoch to epoch. In the case of the US and Canada, Locke's "labour theory" of property rights is often mentioned, although whether it is better seen as a causal underpinning or a post-hoc rationalisation seems like a reasonable question.

In any event, it's not like there's any shortage of writing by historians on these topics. As [MENTION=6683613]TheCosmicKid[/MENTION] said, I don't think any of them posit as a major explanation of colonisation of the Americas that the colonists didn't know there were people already living there.

EDIT:

Thomas Bowman said:

Hunting grounds look like unoccupied wilderness, while a farm looks like a farm. How are the settlers supposed to know which are hunting grounds and which are not? If there are no Indians there, there is no one to tell them what is what.

Click to expand...

One way to learn where the hunting grounds are is to ask people.

Also, you notion that "a farm looks like a farm" is a bit simplistic. It assumes that all agriculture, animal husbandry etc uses the same technologies that the colonists bring with them and are going to straightforwardly recognise. That assumption is false as far as the history of Australia is concerned; I'd be surprised if it wasn't an oversimplification in the case of the US and Canada also.

pemerton said:

My understanding is that they wanted the land, and were prepared to drive other people away to get it. That's what happened - to varying but in all cases significant degrees - in Australia, in the "white highlands" in Kenya, in South Africa, in New Zealand.

Click to expand...

Speak for yourself, some of us were willing to trade perfectly good blankets for land.

Thomas Bowman said:

Alright, so American settlers went west so they could wipe out Indians because they liked killing people so much, and they were all evil! Is that what you are trying to say?

Click to expand...

That would be an infuriatingly stupid thing to say. Most people do not intentionally things that are infuriatingly stupid. So if your first impression of something I or anyone else has said is that it's infuriatingly stupid, I would recommend - rather than duly becoming infuriated - instead taking a second look and asking yourself what other, more reasonable thing they might actually have meant.

pemerton said:

My understanding is that they wanted the land, and were prepared to drive other people away to get it. That's what happened - to varying but in all cases significant degrees - in Australia, in the "white highlands" in Kenya, in South Africa, in New Zealand.

What their moral and political theory was that allowed them to justify this to themselves varied from place to place and epoch to epoch. In the case of the US and Canada, Locke's "labour theory" of property rights is often mentioned, although whether it is better seen as a causal underpinning or a post-hoc rationalisation seems like a reasonable question.

In any event, it's not like there's any shortage of writing by historians on these topics. As @TheCosmicKid said, I don't think any of them posit as a major explanation of colonisation of the Americas that the colonists didn't know there were people already living there.

EDIT:
One way to learn where the hunting grounds are is to ask people.

Also, you notion that "a farm looks like a farm" is a bit simplistic. It assumes that all agriculture, animal husbandry etc uses the same technologies that the colonists bring with them and are going to straightforwardly recognise. That assumption is false as far as the history of Australia is concerned; I'd be surprised if it wasn't an oversimplification in the case of the US and Canada also.

Click to expand...

Can you grow crops in a forest? Agriculture is more efficient than hunting and gathering. A given acre of farmland can support more people than a given acre of forest. I bet you a lot of settlers were thinking about how the Indians were wasting so much land just so they could hunt and gather, and making that land unavailable to farmers as a result.

TheCosmicKid said:

That would be an infuriatingly stupid thing to say. Most people do not intentionally things that are infuriatingly stupid. So if your first impression of something I or anyone else has said is that it's infuriatingly stupid, I would recommend - rather than duly becoming infuriated - instead taking a second look and asking yourself what other, more reasonable thing they might actually have meant.

Click to expand...

Its called sarcasm.
On second thought, I think I'll say nothing. People keep trying to steer this into politics and make statements about the Indians being victims, this is not contributing to a role playing setting.

Thomas Bowman said:

Can you grow crops in a forest? Agriculture is more efficient than hunting and gathering. A given acre of farmland can support more people than a given acre of forest. I bet you a lot of settlers were thinking about how the Indians were wasting so much land just so they could hunt and gather, and making that land unavailable to farmers as a result.

Click to expand...

How is your response at all relevant to what [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] discusses?

Sadras said:

How is your response at all relevant to what [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] discusses?

Click to expand...

you have to alter the land to make a farm, to have a hunting ground you leave it as it is.

Thomas Bowman said:

Its called sarcasm.
On second thought, I think I'll say nothing. People keep trying to steer this into politics and make statements about the Indians being victims, this is not contributing to a role playing setting.

Click to expand...

It isn't about politics, but you keep spouting the benefits of agricultural efficiency as if justifying the persecution of Indians and land-grabs and even defending the land-grabs due to ignorance.

Sadras said:

It isn't about politics, but you keep spouting the benefits of agricultural efficiency as if justifying the persecution of Indians and land-grabs and even defending the land-grabs due to ignorance.

Click to expand...

No, just stating a fact. Does air rush into a vacuum? Can you blame the air molecules for doing that? The Americas were a vacuum of people, the population density was much lower than in Europe. Europeans had ships, and they saw a lot of land for growing food and feeding themselves, so what do you suggest they do instead, just watch their children starve? Learn to love being a peasant?

Thomas Bowman said:

No, just stating a fact. Does air rush into a vacuum? Can you blame the air molecules for doing that? The Americas were a vacuum of people, the population density was much lower than in Europe. Europeans had ships, and they saw a lot of land for growing food and feeding themselves, so what do you suggest they do instead, just watch their children starve? Learn to love being a peasant?

Click to expand...

Not murder a bunch of people and steal their land? Find a peaceful means of co-existence borne out of mutual benefit? Is that really so much to ask of a society? Even if it was a path so rarely taken?