Every colonized county had their populations life expectancy double. Ya’ll forget that before engineering, philosophy, medicine, culture, trade, these noble savages were dying of a toothinfection at 35, swatting malaria in a mudhut.
We had technology, medicine, and agriculture down to art forms. We were savage, yes, but we gave it as good as we got, and we were functioning societies with histories, diplomats, and cultures. Do not disrespect worthy adversaries, it only reflects badly onto you.
Yes, the "colonization is the greatest thing to happen to you" mentality is played out. Firstly, even IF we assume that any of those ideas are true that assumes that the colonized wouldn't have eventually gained that knowledge through communication, observation, technical development, or as emerging markets. Secondly, Amy good doesn't wash out bad. You can't kill someone's family then give them a new one one and say "see? This is much better than your old family. Your new dad is a World class chef and your new mom is a PHD!" I can't break your leg and then give you $10 and say I did you a favor. More important it overlooks the exploitation of many colonies and the cost to them and benefit of their exploitation to the colonizers. It's like breaking into your house and installing a fallout bunker, stealing your life savings and killing your dog and calling that payment for the services I gave that you never agreed to. Revisionist history is not becoming.
35 years living an authentic life, feeling connected to your own people, your history, the entire universe vs. 90 years fake live of microwaved snacks, Trash TV, Facebook and false beliefs to enslave, corrupt and plunder you... yeah, easy choice for anon guest.
Don't go too far towards the romantic view. It was a life of hunting, gathering, fishing, and many of us traveled constantly. The mentally ill would go hunting with a brother and no-one would question only one of them coming back, the sick were often left behind for the good of the tribe, rouges like the Comanche were waiting to enslave you or othereise ruin your day, and being connected with the entire universe did nothing to protect you from man or nature.
There is error in the "noble native" trope. Not all tribes were peaceful earth loving democrats or benevolent stewards. Culture varies by tribe but there were ecologically destructive or war prone tribes who only didn't do more damage because they lacked the means to. That said colonizers can't historically claim a moral high ground there. The danger came when two cultures met and one decided it was "better" than the other and so needed to replace it. Neither way was "better" per se on the whole and in any group there are assholes. It doesn't matter if your neighbor is a saint or scum, that doesn't justify stealing from him, murder, rape, or burning his house down. Things were taken that can't be given back, debts by the dead to the dead handed down to their children with no way to collect without punishing the innocent. Actions like that benefit a moment and stain the future for millennia.
5
deleted
· 6 years ago
That life was objectively better, simply because it's the kind of life evolution has optimized us for. We're literally built to live in small groups, live of the land and die in our 40s, all of which we did for way most of our time as Cro Magnons. I don't say natives were "better" (and groups can't be "noble", only individuals). just better off. And I'm not romanticizing anything, having the choice, I would always chose central heating, complex and abstract popular culture, thai and syrian food, aged bourbon and hi-tech weed vaporizers over sleeping under the stars. Cause that's what I know and sticking to what you know is another part of our firmware.
▼
deleted
· 6 years ago
Who says we are not staying in small groups. We just now all those groups over the world. And I do admit that the British introduced The Industrial Revolution in India but, who made it thrive? Indians. The British were not ready to stay in India and do all the work. They just worked as a small catalyst. As for America, you guys got freedom 300 years ago and that really played a big role in getting modernised and evolving yourself.
Objectively better? No such thing. Evolutionary optimization? Inherently flawed, it's all trial and error, there's no reason to stick to the formula if we don't have to.
And you don't prefer those things because you know them, you prefer them because they are more in line to your own sensibilities. The same way others' sensibilities lead them to different lifestyles. Our own differences exemplify that.
That's sort of the point. Objectively better is flawed since we not only are incapable of knowing with certainty that one things is objectively better in a true sense, but are incapable of objectivism. We don't really care much for the objective to start since our individual views and interests are subjective as you say. The reality an individual prefers differs, but the basic start of the failings of colonial exploitation is putting ones ideal view of reality at the expense of another's unilaterally. At a certain population point living in small groups stops being as practical. Prior to European arrival native Americans weren't all small tribes of sparse people. Some areas hosted millions of people. Evidence suggests 500 years ago the population was roughly halved by disease, and the war and destruction colonization brought did much of the rest. It's hard discussing "native history" as much is oral and the lives and ways of tribes and groups varied greatly.
And you don't prefer those things because you know them, you prefer them because they are more in line to your own sensibilities. The same way others' sensibilities lead them to different lifestyles. Our own differences exemplify that.