Interactive time-lapse map of the transfer of Native land between 1776 and 1887
slate.com
slate.com
Take the borders of Europe, for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY9P0QSxlnI
I doubt the expansion of, say, the Roman Empire in what we now call Europe and Africa was any less violent than the expansion of the English-speaking world in what we now call North America.
Humankind's track record on this earth is full of atrocities.
If Africa had disease outbreaks like North America, then it would have probably gone the same way as North America, even more so really given the shorter distances.
What I was saying that Europe didn’t have a mass death of one group but not another. In North America it was the natives who died off, but not the Europeans. Africa had no equivalent of what happened in North America so no colony was capable of having a sea to shining sea manifest destiny.
It is horrifying on a scale that most of us, fortunately, probably can't even appreciate.
How we continue to treat each other and our environment does not bode particularly well for humanity.
If history is written by the victors, surely Americans are now the vanquished.
At this point I just hope the natives eventually make it into the modern world better. Pretty much all there is to do :/
Not it is not a nature, it is nurture.
One shouldn't use appellation to a nature in such a matters. Compare: rape is bad, but the sad thing it is in a male nature, isn't it? No, rape is bad and intolerable. It doesn't matter what male nature is, because male is perfectly capable to curb his impulses. If some is not, they should use some kind of medication.
It doesn't matter what the nature of human is, he is capable to be nice to natives, but he just do not want to, because profits are more desired.
When society thought that gays is bad for a society, it was definitely an equivalent example then. Now society is wiser and do not think that gays are bad for a society. So the analogy breaks now.
Assuming you're a straight male, are you able to look at a beautiful woman and not feel any feelings of attraction?
My point is that there are behaviors that definitely transcend "nurture". It's ridiculous to claim there aren't.
It is not about to be attracted or not to be attracted. It is a choice between different kinds of behavior, not between different states of mind. It is bad to rob a bank. But it is neither bad nor good to be attracted by the money of the bank.
There is neither bad nor good to be sexually attracted by a woman, but it is bad to rape her in any case. I feel attraction to a women regularly, but I'm not raping them.
You know, there is an examples of sexual preferences that are forbidden. Pedophilia for example. But if pedophile keeps his preferences to himself, than it is ok, nothing wrong with it. We forbid pedophiles to follow their sexual desires, but we allow heterosexuals and homosexuals to follow theirs (while they respect legal constraints on an age of a partner). What the difference? Why we allow some people to follow their sexual preferences and forbid others to do so?
Lets clarify: it is bad to forbid human from following his sexual desires. Not just because he would be unhappy, it is bad for his psychological well-being, it might have harmful long term effects for his mind. As Freud taught there is 8 (or 9?) kinds of psychological defense and only one of them isn't necessary harmful to a person -- sublimation. Which one of those will choose the mind of pedophile?
But in some cases we forbid nevertheless despite of damages, why we think that it is ok?
It is all about harm to individuals and to a society inflicted by following a desires. Gays are harmless, they are not saints of course, but they are not worse than a heterosexual. There is no reason to harm gays by a ban to a homosexual relationships. Such a ban would inflict damage for some without benefiting others. But pedophile could do a lot of harm to children, so we accept harming pedophiles to protect our children. We accept harming robbers of banks to protect banks. We accept harming rapers to protect women. We do not accept harming heterosexuals, because they do nothing specifically bad. We do not accept harming gays, because they do nothing specifically bad.
Therefore I see, that when people start to attribute psychological traits of people to a nature they do it mostly to justify genocide, segregation or something like. To attribute psychological trait to a nature is an emotional argument.
People are intrinsically competitive. If you think white people screwing natives was the first or only time this happened you should look into the history of the natives themselves. It's human nature - you can accept it or cover your ears, the choice is yours.