I never said White men were evil. I merely stated the facts as they are presented in the history books. YOU are the one who used the word "evil". There. That is my response.
I read a book (I really wish I could remember the title...) that made a really strong argument that 'first contact' between Europeans and Native Americans led to a roughly 90% population reduction of all of the Americas (N and S) in just a few years (purely by accidental disease spread- intentional germ warfare came much later) and if it hadn't been for this, colonization would have been impossible as the Natives would've had simply too much of a population advantage for Europeans to gain a foothold.
Yes, from what I have read diseases spread by Europeans were detrimental to the Native Americans. I don't know about 90% death rate in a few years but certainly over decades the death toll was tremendous. Whatever the number there can be no doubt that there was a genocidal campaign against the Native Americans involving war and displacement.
The evidence provided in the book I was refering to indicates the bulk of infection was early and unintentional. Accounts of the earliest explorations describe unending coastlines of habitation, and mere years later the same coastlines being littered with skeletons and rotting structures, as an example. The campaigns of genocide came far later after european governments had established power bases in the new world. I will try to find the book.
Actually, according to the mores of the time, what they did was OK. You re judging a different culture by your culture's standards. This is the kind of thing most liberals say is immoral.
Name one country where 'human sacrifice was a popular hobby of the royals'. Nor was my claim that the Europeans were better than the natives. Just that they were no worse and that benefits accrued to the Amerinds. '
There's a reason why Pizarro managed to conquer the Incan empire with like 500 dudes and some horses, and it wasn't because those dudes and horses were total badass ninjas when it came to conquering. It happened the way it did because Pizarro had no trouble finding allies in the native populations to side with him against the bloodthirsty, child-sacrificing bastards that had terrorized, brutalized, and exploited them for so long. Compared to the sick bastards that were in charge, the Spanish looked like sweethearts.
Tenochtitlan's sacrificial victims were captives brought back from wars. Subject peoples in the Mexica Empire were also sometimes required to send individuals as tribute. Ritual sacrifice discouraged outside attacks and internal revolt by vividly displaying rulers' power in early states.
So. We are agreed the Spanish put a stop to the practice of human sacrifice in Mesoamerica. While we're at it how about stipulating that the English put a stop to Suttee in India?
INSTRUMENTS OF TORTURE DURING THE ELIZABETHAN ERA Various means of tortures were use to extract confessions for crime. Women did not escape torture and punishment during this violent era - Anne Askew was put to the rack for her religious beliefs, and subsequently died, during the reign of Elizabeth's father King Henry VIII. The highest nobles were automatically exempt from torture but other courtiers were not. Instruments and means of torture, for unproven crimes, included the following: The Rack The Scavenger's Daughter The Collar The Iron Maiden Branding Irons The Wheel Thumbscrews The Gossip's Bridle or the Brank The Drunkards Cloak Ducking stools The Pillory and the Stocks Assorted instruments designed to inflict intense pain
