Opens history book on Europe/Asia/Africa/South America, etc. insert literally any place in the world. Wow! I’m funny on Lemmy! So dumb, good people in every country in the world. And just about every country has done unspeakable things to get to where they are today. Most of the time it’s not because the good people even want to be involved it’s because the rich make it happen. Blame the rich…they are the problem in every country.
You’re not wrong, every country has done fucked shit. I think the point of this meme is to bring Americans down to that realisation that applies to their country too, tho.
A 2015 autosomal genetic study, which also analyzed data of 25 studies of 38 different Brazilian populations concluded that: European ancestry accounts for 62% of the heritage of the population, followed by the African (21%) and the Native American (17%). The European contribution is highest in Southern Brazil (77%), the African highest in Northeast Brazil (27%) and the Native American is the highest in Northern Brazil (32%).
Argentina too
Many genetic studies have shown that Argentina’s genetic footprint is primarily, but not overwhelmingly, European. In a genetic study involving 441 Argentines from across the North East, North West, Southern, and Central provinces (especially the urban conglomeration of Buenos Aires) of the country, it was observed that 65% of the Argentine population was of European descent, followed by 31% of indigenous descent, and 4% of African descent.
Another example would be Canada, but that’s a bit on the nose.
In all reality, the majority of Native Americans died from old world diseases brought over by Europeans prior to 1700, the idea of the modern American wouldn’t exist for at least 100 years by the time Europeans had killed most of the Natives.
Cortez’s arrival in Mexico killed ~20 million Natives in Mexico between 1520 and 1570. Prior to his arrival there were an estimated 22 million Natives in Mexico.
Contemporary estimates suggest that the USA population of Natives prior to the arrival of colonists was around 5-15 million. By 1800 that population had dropped to 600k.
So by the numbers it looks like Europeans killed ~90-99% of Natives Americans prior to 1800 and ~47-75% by 1600.
What the US did was deliberate and with the intent of eradicating natives, what others did was collateral damage
Care to point to something specific? Also, you wanna explain that collateral damage part a bit better?
The US is responsible for the deliberate murder of a lot of Native Americans, but even if we put the biological warfare aside, Europeans deliberately killed magnitudes more.
Collateral damage is dying due to the unintentional spread of diseases.
Deliberate damage is sending the natives cloths that have been intentionally infected, then killing off their main source of food, then wiping out entire groups and then claim the natives are the savages when they fight back, while there were rewards for hunting natives like they were wild animals, and then confining the remaining few in bantustans or as the US called them “reserves” (know what wildlife reserves are?) that are put in areas chosen to deprive them from enough resources and where alcoholism was instigated by the government as a way to keep them weak. The people who made all of this possible are now regarded as national heroes.
And no, not even the English killed as much as the US.
I originally had a really long message refuting individual points, but I thought I’d take it back a step because at it’s root we’re arguing who caused the most genocide which really sucks.
I’m not sure where you’re from, but based on your posts I’m gonna guess not the USA mainly because your argument really is missing a lot of important information.
Despite your opinions to the contrary most people in the USA know about the Native Americans, it’s a massive portion of our basic education. You’ll also have a hard time finding an American who thinks what was done to the Natives was ok. The people who caused the whole thing are not considered National Heroes, contrary to your statement. Most Americans think quite poorly of the likes of Custer and Jackson.
Your post in general seems to just be an anti-American post, while making large stereotypes and ignoring Europe’s own involvement in the Americas and the rest of the world. Next time save yourself the time and just say what you really want to say, you hate the USA.
Singling out the US from WW2 seems odd. It was the one with Nazis, you know? Also during that war Japan did some absolutely despicable shit, like Nanjing massacre, there were the Nazis which, yeah no need to explain that one, USSR had their own massacres and “forced relocations” of peoples, there was the fascist Italy which at least in Africa did awful shit, Croatia had Ustaše and their own holocaust, Lithuania same deal, don’t remember off the bat what horrible shit Brits did but knowing Brits you know there’s something there, Finland had horrific prison camps for Soviet prisoners…
Looking at WW2 and coming to the conclusion that the US specifically is bad is weird. There’s so much fucked up shit done by almost everyone.
Also tbh I’ve never really understood what the big difference between using nukes and just bombing the absolute shit out of a population with conventional weapons is. Nowadays the difference is that you don’t want to trigger a nuclear exchange, but that wasn’t really a case then. One difference is that it’s new and different weapon, but that’s not very concrete. Radiation and lasting effects is more concrete, but also, unexploded shit manages to still kill people. You’ll have horrific after effects from conventional weapons too.
This is something I’ve never understood but would be glad if someone explains. It’s often just said as self-evident thing but I’ve never seen the argument spelled out. Might help me change my mind about it if someone does.
It’s sorta hard to learn about the argument or the difference when people outright refuse to spell it out.
If you can’t tell the difference in “just bombing” and what happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki… well that says more about you than anything else.
Of course my opinion says things about me. But like I said, I don’t see the big difference to conventional weapons. That’s why I’m asking you to explain it to me ffs
What happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki wasn’t worse than Dresden, Tokyo, or several other bombings (especially Cambodia in the Vietnam war). They are notable in terms of being a nuke, but in terms of damage overall unremarkable.
This is my feeling too. With the number of killed and the destruction they caused they don’t seem that different from conventional weapons.
I’m not sure what makes the nukes worse and this guy just outright refused to even explain it to me since they didn’t feel likely they’d manage to convince me. Kinda infuriating, especially when I’m genuinely interested in understanding the argument.
A lot of focus is in those bombs and generally the complete destruction of conventional weapons is glossed over or even ignored. Especially when it was the allies targeting civilian infrastructure.
Opens history book on Europe/Asia/Africa/South America, etc. insert literally any place in the world. Wow! I’m funny on Lemmy! So dumb, good people in every country in the world. And just about every country has done unspeakable things to get to where they are today. Most of the time it’s not because the good people even want to be involved it’s because the rich make it happen. Blame the rich…they are the problem in every country.
You’re not wrong, every country has done fucked shit. I think the point of this meme is to bring Americans down to that realisation that applies to their country too, tho.
With an insulting title like this post has, I don’t think that’s the point at all.
DAE the US in unaware of history!? Because I think I know what 300 million people are!
I was talking about the meme that OP posted, not the title OP gave it. I am assuming OP did not make the meme.
Everybody knows. There’s nothing new under the sun
I can’t imagine they don’t know.
Because Americans don’t know? We get taught about this in school. If you want to find a country that buries its atrocities, try Japan
If your republicans get their way, kids won’t be taught about it in school in future. :P
Not all countries did as horrible things as America, at least not on the same scale
Lol yes they did go read a book you pot stirrer.
Most countries haven’t ethnically cleansed 99% of their original population
Um… you just haven’t gone back far enough.
No, I have. Genetics have barely changed since the Neolithic apart from the US
Uhhh how about rest of the Americas for a start
They haven’t changed much. Most people are still native with Spanish, Portuguese and African admixture
Brazil certainly has seen a massive change.
Argentina too
Another example would be Canada, but that’s a bit on the nose.
In all reality, the majority of Native Americans died from old world diseases brought over by Europeans prior to 1700, the idea of the modern American wouldn’t exist for at least 100 years by the time Europeans had killed most of the Natives.
Cortez’s arrival in Mexico killed ~20 million Natives in Mexico between 1520 and 1570. Prior to his arrival there were an estimated 22 million Natives in Mexico.
Contemporary estimates suggest that the USA population of Natives prior to the arrival of colonists was around 5-15 million. By 1800 that population had dropped to 600k.
So by the numbers it looks like Europeans killed ~90-99% of Natives Americans prior to 1800 and ~47-75% by 1600.
What the US did was deliberate and with the intent of eradicating natives, what others did was collateral damage
Also, where did you get the 20 millions number from? casualties were of 200k
Those are casualties from combat. My numbers were the resulting spread of disease
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_the_Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas
Care to point to something specific? Also, you wanna explain that collateral damage part a bit better?
The US is responsible for the deliberate murder of a lot of Native Americans, but even if we put the biological warfare aside, Europeans deliberately killed magnitudes more.
Collateral damage is dying due to the unintentional spread of diseases.
Deliberate damage is sending the natives cloths that have been intentionally infected, then killing off their main source of food, then wiping out entire groups and then claim the natives are the savages when they fight back, while there were rewards for hunting natives like they were wild animals, and then confining the remaining few in bantustans or as the US called them “reserves” (know what wildlife reserves are?) that are put in areas chosen to deprive them from enough resources and where alcoholism was instigated by the government as a way to keep them weak. The people who made all of this possible are now regarded as national heroes.
And no, not even the English killed as much as the US.
I originally had a really long message refuting individual points, but I thought I’d take it back a step because at it’s root we’re arguing who caused the most genocide which really sucks.
I’m not sure where you’re from, but based on your posts I’m gonna guess not the USA mainly because your argument really is missing a lot of important information.
Despite your opinions to the contrary most people in the USA know about the Native Americans, it’s a massive portion of our basic education. You’ll also have a hard time finding an American who thinks what was done to the Natives was ok. The people who caused the whole thing are not considered National Heroes, contrary to your statement. Most Americans think quite poorly of the likes of Custer and Jackson.
Your post in general seems to just be an anti-American post, while making large stereotypes and ignoring Europe’s own involvement in the Americas and the rest of the world. Next time save yourself the time and just say what you really want to say, you hate the USA.
You’re right. They go to other countries to ethnically cleanse those populations.
Like where? Not even Israel has such a low number of natives
Woah, I didn’t know you were an expert on every single nation.
My apologies. Everyone, we’re in the presence of greatness. Bow your heads.
deleted by creator
Singling out the US from WW2 seems odd. It was the one with Nazis, you know? Also during that war Japan did some absolutely despicable shit, like Nanjing massacre, there were the Nazis which, yeah no need to explain that one, USSR had their own massacres and “forced relocations” of peoples, there was the fascist Italy which at least in Africa did awful shit, Croatia had Ustaše and their own holocaust, Lithuania same deal, don’t remember off the bat what horrible shit Brits did but knowing Brits you know there’s something there, Finland had horrific prison camps for Soviet prisoners…
Looking at WW2 and coming to the conclusion that the US specifically is bad is weird. There’s so much fucked up shit done by almost everyone.
Also tbh I’ve never really understood what the big difference between using nukes and just bombing the absolute shit out of a population with conventional weapons is. Nowadays the difference is that you don’t want to trigger a nuclear exchange, but that wasn’t really a case then. One difference is that it’s new and different weapon, but that’s not very concrete. Radiation and lasting effects is more concrete, but also, unexploded shit manages to still kill people. You’ll have horrific after effects from conventional weapons too.
This is something I’ve never understood but would be glad if someone explains. It’s often just said as self-evident thing but I’ve never seen the argument spelled out. Might help me change my mind about it if someone does.
deleted by creator
It’s sorta hard to learn about the argument or the difference when people outright refuse to spell it out.
Of course my opinion says things about me. But like I said, I don’t see the big difference to conventional weapons. That’s why I’m asking you to explain it to me ffs
What happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki wasn’t worse than Dresden, Tokyo, or several other bombings (especially Cambodia in the Vietnam war). They are notable in terms of being a nuke, but in terms of damage overall unremarkable.
This is my feeling too. With the number of killed and the destruction they caused they don’t seem that different from conventional weapons.
I’m not sure what makes the nukes worse and this guy just outright refused to even explain it to me since they didn’t feel likely they’d manage to convince me. Kinda infuriating, especially when I’m genuinely interested in understanding the argument.
A lot of focus is in those bombs and generally the complete destruction of conventional weapons is glossed over or even ignored. Especially when it was the allies targeting civilian infrastructure.