American Indians Colonize the Old world in 1250 BC

[Thomas Bowman]

the Indians were human and so were the Europeans, Africans, and Near East Asians, I think the fault is with human nature in general. People are selfish and they take advantage of situations no matter what the color of their skins.

 

[Riley37]

Not sure why you're jumping from the Taino to the Aztecs.

The reason isn't a good reason. Because comparing the actions of all the people who came to the Americas from Europe, from Leif Erikson onwards, with all the actions of all the people who came to the Americas from Asia via the Bering Straits, from the Taino to the Inuit, is such a large scale. No two points adequately represent the whole.

And you don't want to rest your argument on the claim that the Aztecs weren't so bad, because they really, really were. (On the subject of children... look up "Tlaloc".)

The summary I found on Tlaloc didn't put the child sacrifice up front, but I looked for it and found it.

The stronger argument is that regardless of how bad the Aztecs were to themselves and to their neighbors, their badness hardly justifies visiting further badness of the same genus upon them.

Would you care to speculate on whether life among the subject peoples was worse under the Aztecs, or worse under Spanish encomienda? Neither is a place to find moral high ground. One can also debate the Third Reich versus the USSR under Stalin, and the arguments there are well-worn.

Perhaps I should retract any attempt to answer the question about moral superiority. The asker has already drawn his conclusions, and won't benefit from any response I give. I had a point about Thomas telling Gradine "if you studied this ancient period..." and whether Thomas had accurately summarized Gradine's position, or was knocking down a straw man. That point stands independently.

On another hand, here's an even wider re-framing of the question: is it possible, among humans, for group A to encounter group B, where group A have the technology to travel to location B but not vice versa, and for group A to *not* conquer and enslave group B?

 

[TheCosmicKid]

On another hand, here's an even wider re-framing of the question: is it possible, among humans, for group A to encounter group B, where group A have the technology to travel to location B but not vice versa, and for group A to *not* conquer and enslave group B?

I'm going to answer with a qualified "yes". The pattern of imperialism we see in the colonization of the Americas is not always repeated. Other sea powers of the ages, like the Phoenicians and the Chinese, did not do the same things: they were more interested in trade than conquest. But the line between the two can be a bit blurry. The Phoenicians did trade slaves among other cargo. And the Chinese treasure fleets were undoubtedly intended to conduct "trade" from a position of overwhelming strength (although odd fact: Zheng He was himself a slave). Even the Norse, notorious conquerors and slavers, reached farther as merchants and settlers. Leif Ericsson's bunch in Vinland do not seem to have been particularly interested in subjugating their new neighbors, and the eventual fighting was the result of trade relations gone sour.

 

[Shasarak]

From what I've read, Columbus treated the Taino much, much worse than they treated him and his crews. Columbus wrote about selling girls aged 9 and 10 as slaves. The Aztec empire practiced slavery and indenture, but what I've read about them doesn't include selling *children* as slaves.

The Aztecs may have been human sacrificing heathens but at least they had standards.

 

[Derren]

I'm going to answer with a qualified "yes". The pattern of imperialism we see in the colonization of the Americas is not always repeated. Other sea powers of the ages, like the Phoenicians and the Chinese, did not do the same things: they were more interested in trade than conquest. But the line between the two can be a bit blurry. The Phoenicians did trade slaves among other cargo. And the Chinese treasure fleets were undoubtedly intended to conduct "trade" from a position of overwhelming strength (although odd fact: Zheng He was himself a slave). Even the Norse, notorious conquerors and slavers, reached farther as merchants and settlers. Leif Ericsson's bunch in Vinland do not seem to have been particularly interested in subjugating their new neighbors, and the eventual fighting was the result of trade relations gone sour.

Don't forget that even among the nations that colonized America there were differences. Conquerors were mainly the Spanish and British/Americans (and they only during the latter stage). The French and Dutch were more peaceful.

 

[Thomas Bowman]

Don't forget that even among the nations that colonized America there were differences. Conquerors were mainly the Spanish and British/Americans (and they only during the latter stage). The French and Dutch were more peaceful.

How could they be otherwise? They got kicked out by the other colonial powers! France sold Louisiana to the United States after all, after that it was out of French hands San Dominique became Haiti when the black slaves revolted and France lost that, and of course they lost Quebec to the British in the French and Indian Wars, and Quebec was little more than a fur trading outpost when the French held it anyway. The Dutch of course had their colony of New Amsterdam which became New York and New Jersey when the British took it over.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Don't forget that even among the nations that colonized America there were differences. Conquerors were mainly the Spanish and British/Americans (and they only during the latter stage). The French and Dutch were more peaceful.

Remember that the French Empire is one of the few nations in history to have the dubious distinction of re-establishing slavery after having already abolished it, because Napoleon's wife's family had extensive plantations in the Caribbean and they were getting soaked. And they have another dubious distinction of experiencing a slave revolt that actually succeeded in throwing off the chains, in Haiti. So i can't exactly agree with your assessment of their activities in the New World. Dutch history in the Americas I know less about, but what I do know indicates that they were typical imperialists at best. Certainly their history in Africa was horrific.

 

[Thomas Bowman]

I'm going to answer with a qualified "yes". The pattern of imperialism we see in the colonization of the Americas is not always repeated. Other sea powers of the ages, like the Phoenicians and the Chinese, did not do the same things: they were more interested in trade than conquest. But the line between the two can be a bit blurry. The Phoenicians did trade slaves among other cargo. And the Chinese treasure fleets were undoubtedly intended to conduct "trade" from a position of overwhelming strength (although odd fact: Zheng He was himself a slave). Even the Norse, notorious conquerors and slavers, reached farther as merchants and settlers. Leif Ericsson's bunch in Vinland do not seem to have been particularly interested in subjugating their new neighbors, and the eventual fighting was the result of trade relations gone sour.

And how did history treat China after it burned its treasure ships? China became colonized itself by Europeans! China wasn't one of the colonial powers in the Americas because they took themselves out. It is a very competitive world out there, and China chose not to compete in this arena. In the reverse situation we are dealing with the aggressive imperialistic native American empires, they ones that do not participate in this are not noticed by the Old Worlders because they aren't there. the peaceful Indians that stay at home and don't bother anybody aren't a factor in this situation. I don't know whether they could help the Egyptians or the Babylonians if they had no presence. the Egyptians and the Babylonians were empires as well, so it would be empires vs empires, and I don't see much motivation for peaceful Indians to take over side or the other if they have nothing at stake, nothing to protect.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

And how did history treat China after it burned its treasure ships? China became colonized itself by Europeans!

Yeah, only four centuries between the treasure voyages and the Opium Wars. Clearly those two events have a direct causal connection. "What happened after the Dutch ceded New Amsterdam? 9/11!"

 

[Agray Day]

Don't forget that even among the nations that colonized America there were differences. Conquerors were mainly the Spanish and British/Americans (and they only during the latter stage). The French and Dutch were more peaceful.

I am sure the Chinese of Batavia would disagree, as would probably the people of Ambon, the people who worked the sugar plantations in Suriname, the Indonesians of dutch decolonization of Indonesia, The Africans of southwest Africa, The people of the Mughal empire, Africans from Ghana, Nigeria, and Benin would also vehemently disagree with your quote.