• If your recruitment thread involves completely going off site with your partner(s) then it belongs in the Off-Site Ad Area.
  • This area of the site is governed by the official Recruitment rules. Whether you are looking for players or looking for a roleplay, we recommend you read them and familiarize your self with them. Read the Recruitment Rules Here.

The Last War (Alternate WWI)

The American relationship with the Indians was a lot more complex that you would be led to think. Firstly, the "we took their land" argument doesn't hold water. When Europeans arrived at the east coast, Indian tribes lived on and cultivated probably less than 1% of the geographical mass of North America. Why should these European countries with burgeoning populations barely fed by their whole agricultural effort, not settle in America on some of the near infinite land that the Indians weren't using? 


And as much as whites get a bad rap for committing atrocities against the natives, it was fairly common for Indian raiding parties to pillage farms and butcher families. I would say that both sides were equally invested in bloodshed, and that the concept of the peaceful Indian is woefully mythical. Another point of contention, I don't necessarily belief that the Europeans purposefully gave the Indians smallpox. At least not in the colonial era. These are a people who have no concept of germ theory, I don't think they honestly thought they could purposefully spread pestilence. 


As for the actions of the US government, the policies of the Jackson administration were the most egregious and Jackson himself is a villanous figure with a few large redeeming qualities. Overall, the intention of the American people was typically towards "civilizing" the natives and making them fit for a modern, Christian society. There were of course interests, especially the railroads, that wanted the Indian problem dealt with and the Indians did themselves no favors by earning a bloodthirsty reputation. The idea of a violent Indian population didn't just appear out of thin air. 
 
Just a reminder that the gms are discussing/working to make a new thread and we politely remind you to also discuss and not take a detour into arguments or taking personal offense at comments.
 
Just a reminder that the gms are discussing/working to make a new thread and we politely remind you to also discuss and not take a detour into arguments or taking personal offense at comments.

Agreed, we're all here to learn! World War 1 is an interesting period after all!

The American relationship with the Indians was a lot more complex that you would be led to think. Firstly, the "we took their land" argument doesn't hold water. When Europeans arrived at the east coast, Indian tribes lived on and cultivated probably less than 1% of the geographical mass of North America. Why should these European countries with burgeoning populations barely fed by their whole agricultural effort, not settle in America on some of the near infinite land that the Indians weren't using? 


And as much as whites get a bad rap for committing atrocities against the natives, it was fairly common for Indian raiding parties to pillage farms and butcher families. I would say that both sides were equally invested in bloodshed, and that the concept of the peaceful Indian is woefully mythical. Another point of contention, I don't necessarily belief that the Europeans purposefully gave the Indians smallpox. At least not in the colonial era. These are a people who have no concept of germ theory, I don't think they honestly thought they could purposefully spread pestilence. 


As for the actions of the US government, the policies of the Jackson administration were the most egregious and Jackson himself is a villanous figure with a few large redeeming qualities. Overall, the intention of the American people was typically towards "civilizing" the natives and making them fit for a modern, Christian society. There were of course interests, especially the railroads, that wanted the Indian problem dealt with and the Indians did themselves no favors by earning a bloodthirsty reputation. The idea of a violent Indian population didn't just appear out of thin air. 

I fucking love you Shireling..
 
@ShirelingYou are fucking BAE <3 <3 <3 <3 <3  


Why are we arguing over whether or not America is evil?


All countries have done bad shit.  No country is free of sin and America is not particularly bad.  
 
We don't accuse Turkey of Genocide

Armenian Genocide

What do you mean they didn't Imperialization like the Europeans did? THAT MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE.


Imperialism is spreading influence through diplomacy or military. Genocide isn't Imperialism, it's government. Their's only really two ways to go about imperialisn- via diplomats or conquering land. Any nation that imperialized did it that way.


Both your links are useless and didny explain anything besides what I have told you... Their is no "old or new" Imperialism.  Imperialism is Imperialism. It started as soon as the Europeans came to the Americas.


Ever head if the "civilizing mission"? Or "Social Darwinism"? Or "Nationalism"? That's some of the causes for imperialism. The same ones used by the US and the rest of Europe and Japan. I'm not saying the US did anything bad but to say the US went about imperialism any different form Europeans is wrong.


In the Opium wars or wars in Asia or Africa where the nations cut off their hands and shit, that wasn't imperialism. That was just prejudice and racism against them. How we drove away Natives and Mexicans from our land repeatedly? That was prejudice now Imperialism.


That can not be more true. The same goes for any country. We only teach the good things about the country and sugar coat the bad. It's not just the US but any country that exists and has schools.

Look at the differences man. There are two types. I even learned this at school. there are too types, and you cant just say there aren't to benefit your argument. I guess in general, imperialism means imperialism. But there is a difference between the Colonization of the world, and seizing land from an enemy. And just because you don't understasnd what something is, or the difference between two things, that doesn't mean it isn't valid.


By your words alone, the annexation of Louisianna is Imperialism, and so it the US getting land from the UK and etc. If you cant see that, i'm sorry.
 
OMG GUYS LOOK AT THESE PICS I FOUND


6a010535647bf3970b01b7c770f80d970b-800wi



6a010535647bf3970b01bb0814f40f970d-600wi



SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO CUTE AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
 
Armenian Genocide


Look at the differences man. There are two types. I even learned this at school. there are too types, and you cant just say there aren't to benefit your argument. I guess in general, imperialism means imperialism. But there is a difference between the Colonization of the world, and seizing land from an enemy. And just because you don't understasnd what something is, or the difference between two things, that doesn't mean it isn't valid.


By your words alone, the annexation of Louisianna is Imperialism, and so it the US getting land from the UK and etc. If you cant see that, i'm sorry.

Imperialism "The policy of spreading a country's influence by the use of diplomatic or military power"


Sizing land form an enemy and colonization are two different things indeed however from your arguments, this would be true:


In many ways from the Mexican American war, we sized their land AND colonized it. We sent Americans over to the Midwest, built cities and railroads and eventually made states in the territory.


Taking Louisiana could be considered Imperialism because we bought it via diplomacy and settled it. We then went in, displaced Indians and industrialized the land. We wanted the land for profit by taking New Orleans and edned up taking 1/3 if the present day US.


The US getting land after the American Revolution could not be considered Imperialism seeing as it was moreso a rebellion than directly gaining control of the land...


You also said the two types of Imperialism is Old and New Imperialism. Old Imperialism refers to the 16th-18th century during the revolutions and enlightenment etc. New Imperialism refers to the 19th-20th century. I still don't see your point on either one of them. They just refer to different eras of colonization.


If I remember correctly, siezing land from the enemy is Imperialism due to "Social Darwinism" (survival if the fittest) and "Civilizing mission" (colonizing for the sake of educating the populace for the greater good).


Would you mind if you explain your points as I don't really understand what you're trying to say here. On one hand, you claim the US imperialized... Differently? And on the other hand you claim the US wasn't imperial the way it was in the 19th-20th century like other nations.... 


I don't really get what you're trying to say.
 
Imperialism "The policy of spreading a country's influence by the use of diplomatic or military power"


Sizing land form an enemy and colonization are two different things indeed however from your arguments, this would be true:


In many ways from the Mexican American war, we sized their land AND colonized it. We sent Americans over to the Midwest, built cities and railroads and eventually made states in the territory.


Taking Louisiana could be considered Imperialism because we bought it via diplomacy and settled it. We then went in, displaced Indians and industrialized the land. We wanted the land for profit by taking New Orleans and edned up taking 1/3 if the present day US.


The US getting land after the American Revolution could not be considered Imperialism seeing as it was moreso a rebellion than directly gaining control of the land...


You also said the two types of Imperialism is Old and New Imperialism. Old Imperialism refers to the 16th-18th century during the revolutions and enlightenment etc. New Imperialism refers to the 19th-20th century. I still don't see your point on either one of them. They just refer to different eras of colonization.


If I remember correctly, siezing land from the enemy is Imperialism due to "Social Darwinism" (survival if the fittest) and "Civilizing mission" (colonizing for the sake of educating the populace for the greater good).


Would you mind if you explain your points as I don't really understand what you're trying to say here. On one hand, you claim the US imperialized... Differently? And on the other hand you claim the US wasn't imperial the way it was in the 19th-20th century like other nations.... 


I don't really get what you're trying to say.

I'm sorry, but no. No where in that does it say you have to colonize, the simple definition is as you've said is: "The policy of spreading a country's influence by the use of diplomatic or military power"


In fact in the article on Wikipedia, it speaks of the difference between Colonization and Imperialism.


Old Imperialism is the General Sense of the world. UK took Ireland, extending their power to the irish, or America took Texas, extending their reach. It has nothing to do with industrialization or Social Darwinism


New imperialism is imperialism you speak of, using Social Darwinism as an excuse, taking lands for resources to fuel industrialization. Colonizing the land, and etc.


So the way The UK imperialized India is different that say the USA taking Texas, hence them not being the same, and airgo, you cant really compare the 2 as similar
 
The announcements this morning said HPs are being out in hold. Instead, I'll be forced to make thread hell for this RP.

Want to do two threads and I can track all the turns for when HPs are back. I'll copy it all into a google doc and then into the HP
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top