Colonialism: Good or Bad

[Ariadne]

It's good and bad. On the good side, it introduces a new standard in quality of life. On the bad side, it seems to cause a gap between rich colonialist and poor workers. Cuba is an interesting example of colonialism. The beautiful architecture and strong economy was a result of colonialism. Since the revolution, the country has fallen into decay and poverty. There is still a gap between rich and poor, but the colonialism is gone.

 

[captain morgan]

Maybe this will help you decide how it was intended.

Amherst expressed his desire to extirpate the race he's in conflict with:

ex·tir·pate


–verb (used with object), -pat·ed, -pat·ing. 1. to remove or destroy totally; do away with; exterminate.

2. to pull up by or as if by the roots; root up: to extirpate an unwanted hair.



​

So now if you want to extripate a race of people, which definition of inoculate makes sense? Are you going to provide them protection, or is it going to be malicious?

There is only one form which fits.

Are the words extripate and innoculate synonymous?... Did your parents take you to the clinic as a child to get extripated against measles?

It's good and bad. On the good side, it introduces a new standard in quality of life. On the bad side, it seems to cause a gap between rich colonialist and poor workers. Cuba is an interesting example of colonialism. The beautiful architecture and strong economy was a result of colonialism. Since the revolution, the country has fallen into decay and poverty. There is still a gap between rich and poor, but the colonialism is gone.

It's a fine line. Trade and tech transfer (so to speak) go hand in hand with colonialism.

 

[Cliffy]

To inoculate for the purpose of extirpation means exactly what Tonington said. And even if genocide was not intentional at first, the result was, none the less, the same. Maybe there is a different word to express the extirpation of 100 million people. Do you know what it is?

 

[Tonington]

Are the words extripate and innoculate synonymous?...

You're confused...they aren't synonyms. There is only one use of "inoculate" that fits within the context of "extirpation".

You cannot ignore context when looking back at history. That is a fallacy.

 

[Cannuck]

And even if genocide was not intentional at first, the result was, none the less, the same.

Intent is important.

 

[captain morgan]

You're confused...they aren't synonyms. There is only one use of "inoculate" that fits within the context of "extirpation".

You cannot ignore context when looking back at history. That is a fallacy.

I was being sarcastic... You speak of context, put this in the relative context via the usage of language back when the comments were written by Amherst and Bouquet. Applying your own personal, clinical and subjective opinion on the context and meanings of this combination of words does not mean that it is what Amherst or Bouquet meant.

Further, considering that the "conversation" between the 2 was so forthright, had they meant what you wish to believe, they would have up and said it in a straight forward manner and it likely would not have been an issue relegated to the Post Scripts... Bottom line, they would have said "lets extripate all the indians by inoculating them WITH small pox"... But they never wrote anything remotely close to that, did they?

What you want to interpret something that doesn't exist in the way that you see it.

To inoculate for the purpose of extirpation means exactly what Tonington said. And even if genocide was not intentional at first, the result was, none the less, the same. Maybe there is a different word to express the extirpation of 100 million people. Do you know what it is?

Wow.. A hundred million people extripated at a time when there wasn't even close to 100 million people on the planet.

That is indeed a feat

 

[Cliffy]

Wow.. A hundred million people extripated at a time when there wasn't even close to 100 million people on the planet.

That is indeed a feat

I've posted the figures before and the references but you continue to deny. There were between 90 and 120 million people in the Americas with civilizations that eclipsed most European and Asian civilizations. The population was estimated to be approximately 1/4 of the world's population.

 

[Tonington]

The world population in 1700 was est. 600,000,000...

 

[captain morgan]

I've posted the figures before and the references but you continue to deny. There were between 90 and 120 million people in the Americas with civilizations that eclipsed most European and Asian civilizations. The population was estimated to be approximately 1/4 of the world's population.

OK Cliffy, I was just yanking your chain.

Regardless, according to Tonnington, in 1700, the global population was in the range of 600 million... Does it really (truly) make sense that there was a preconceived and deliberate program of genocide to eraser 1/6 of the global population by Columbus?

For some reason, you are hell-bent on waaayyy over-exaggerating reality to custom fit your agenda. The bottom-line is this: Columbus had no clue, designs or intentions of wiping-out a race. That is your imaginary desire that you yearn to believe in order to further a personal agenda.

Lastly, you haven't addressed my question regarding where amerindians originated from and whether or not they are considered "colonists" and therefore should be treated with the same derision that you treat all others.

 

[gopher]

''Columbus had no clue, designs or intentions of wiping-out a race.''

Batolomeo de las Casas wrote historical truths that readily refuted this myth:

''Endless testimonies . .. prove the mild and pacific temperament of the natives.... But our work was to exasperate, ravage, kill, mangle and destroy; small wonder, then, if they tried to kill one of us now and then.... The admiral, it is true, was blind as those who came after him, and he was so anxious to please the King that he committed irreparable crimes against the Indians....

''husbands and wives were together only once every eight or ten months and when they met they were so exhausted and depressed on both sides ... they ceased to procreate. As for the newly born, they died early because their mothers, overworked and famished, had no milk to nurse them, and for this reason, while I was in Cuba, 7000 children died in three months. Some mothers even drowned their babies from sheer desperation.... in this way, husbands died in the mines, wives died at work, and children died from lack of milk . .. and in a short time this land which was so great, so powerful and fertile ... was depopulated. ... My eyes have seen these acts so foreign to human nature, and now I tremble as I write. ...

''When he arrived on Hispaniola in 1508, Las Casas says, "there were 60,000 people living on this island, including the Indians; so that from 1494 to 1508, over three million people had perished from war, slavery, and the mines. Who in future generations will believe this? I myself writing it as a knowledgeable eyewitness can hardly believe it...."

It was Columbus who put this genocide campaign into motion.

 

[Cliffy]

OK Cliffy, I was just yanking your chain.

Regardless, according to Tonnington, in 1700, the global population was in the range of 600 million... Does it really (truly) make sense that there was a preconceived and deliberate program of genocide to eraser 1/6 of the global population by Columbus?

For some reason, you are hell-bent on waaayyy over-exaggerating reality to custom fit your agenda. The bottom-line is this: Columbus had no clue, designs or intentions of wiping-out a race. That is your imaginary desire that you yearn to believe in order to further a personal agenda.

Lastly, you haven't addressed my question regarding where amerindians originated from and whether or not they are considered "colonists" and therefore should be treated with the same derision that you treat all others.

I did answer your question but you chose to ignore it. At first Columbus was under orders to enslave all inhabitants encountered who were not Christian and to take their lands in the name of the King of Spain as decreed by Papal Bulls. When it was discovered that America was not India, the Pope declared that because the native people of the Americas were not mentioned in the Bible, they were, therefore not human and were probably demons who could be killed (should be killed) with impunity. That has nothing to do with my agenda but your denial has everything to do with yours.

 

[Trotz]

The Pope also banned the Crossbow, gave sanction to brothels, et al.

No doubt in any centralized institutions you are bound to have a few moronic leaders.

 

[Cliffy]

The Pope also banned the Crossbow, gave sanction to brothels, et al.

No doubt in any centralized institutions you are bound to have a few moronic leaders.

Few moronic leaders have accomplished what a few Papal Bulls accomplished.

 

[Bar Sinister]

Few moronic leaders have accomplished what a few Papal Bulls accomplished.

Maybe that why it's called Papal bull.

 

[captain morgan]

I did answer your question but you chose to ignore it. At first Columbus was under orders to enslave all inhabitants encountered who were not Christian and to take their lands in the name of the King of Spain as decreed by Papal Bulls. When it was discovered that America was not India, the Pope declared that because the native people of the Americas were not mentioned in the Bible, they were, therefore not human and were probably demons who could be killed (should be killed) with impunity. That has nothing to do with my agenda but your denial has everything to do with yours.

The primary question that you have evaded to date relates to my question if amerindians are colonists (as they didn't sprout of the ground) and therefore should be deserving of the very same derision that you apply to all others.

Regardless, this bullsh*t regarding:

"the Pope declared that because the native people of the Americas were not mentioned in the Bible, they were, therefore not human and were probably demons who could be killed (should be killed) with impunity"

....is nothing more than an expression of your hatred of religion and/or european colonization... Get real Cliffy, no where in the bible does it refer to WASPS (or "people of the Americas) as being the chosen ones and all other inhabitants of the planet were probably demons... Really.. "Probably demons"?

Time to grow up Cliffy and leave your childish fantasies behind you.

 

[Cliffy]

The primary question that you have evaded to date relates to my question if amerindians are colonists (as they didn't sprout of the ground) and therefore should be deserving of the very same derision that you apply to all others.

Regardless, this bullsh*t regarding:

"the Pope declared that because the native people of the Americas were not mentioned in the Bible, they were, therefore not human and were probably demons who could be killed (should be killed) with impunity"

....is nothing more than an expression of your hatred of religion and/or european colonization... Get real Cliffy, no where in the bible does it refer to WASPS (or "people of the Americas) as being the chosen ones and all other inhabitants of the planet were probably demons... Really.. "Probably demons"?

Time to grow up Cliffy and leave your childish fantasies behind you.

Read the papal Bulls and come back when you are educated.

 

[captain morgan]

Read the papal Bulls and come back when you are educated.

You posted the Papal Bulls in the past. Your position is still a fantasy at best, but the reality-based explanation is rooted in your hatred and bias of organized religion. It's easier for you to fabricate a non-existent message in these Papal Bulls to prop up your fantasy rather than to see reality for what it is.

So, on that note... I'm still waiting for you to provide a response to my previous question asked many times now regarding the colonizing activities of the amerindians... Were they the kinder & gentler colonizers and therefore immune from your critical eye?

I'm guessing that you don't like the question too much as you've bent over backwards to evade it.