Out of character thread XVI

[Zim]

Applying Western concepts to people not from the West tends to get messy. The indigenous people of South and Central America did not have an Enlightenment inspired nation-state with a citizen supported political and military structure. At the time, even the European countries didn't have these.

If not even the European had an idea of a "nation" (and, defining the term in a certain way, I'm well aware that they didn't), I'm not sure how the Spanish actions would apply as the actions of a nation state. Your specific mention of them seemed to imply to me that you saw their actions in this way.

When I specifically mentioned precolombian native Americans, it was only in acknowledgement that tribal societies changed greatly after contact with the Spaniards and my point about rates of death by violence in them would apply less after this contact occurred, and was not a attempt to imply that things were perfectly fine in the region in the immediate post-Colombian period.

One thing you learn is that no one really knows anything for sure. But, there tends to eventually be a consensus about things. And while details and degrees may be debated, there seems to be a general agreement that the Spaniards murdered, raped, and overworked the indigenous population of South and Central Americas, as well as the Caribbean.

I didn't mean to say that they didn't, only that some very well educated people disagree about the extent, particularly in regard to certain English and French propaganda seeking to show the Spanish as inhuman. Given your opinion that the holocaust is not neccessarily among the worst cases of genocide, I am a little surprised that you view the Spanish treatment of Native Americans differently.

I think there is enough evidence to suggest that it did happen. True, a lot of it was by "accident". But, my original point was, that it happened because one group sailed over and conquered another group.

Actually, despite hearing the story again and again, I have never read a shred of actual evidence that it did happen. Not saying there isn't any, only that as far as I know it could be as much of a myth as, say, people before Columbus not knowing the Earth was round. Statements by Professors at my college suggest as much.

I'm not trying to rewrite history. In my hypothetical world-state, it starts in the future, not in the past. I live in reality and try to change it. I don't try to rewrite history. Not sure where you were going with that one Zim.

Not sure how your connecting those things. You can have disease policy at the same time you have a global spanning government. I feel your mixing apples and oranges here.

I feel that you were the one comparing unlike things. You acknowledge the lack of nation-states in Europe during this period, but put forth the proposition that the diseases spread by the Spaniards somehow put a blight on the concept of the Nation-State.

Nationalism was not the cause of the decimation by disease of Native populations. In a stateless world, or one with a world state, such a thing would be just as likely to happen once travel advanced to the point where these peoples could contact eachother. If the Spaniards were a peaceful post nation-state people, only seeking to trade, the diseases would liekly spread just as quickly and be just as deadly. Their intention to conquer the peoples of the region had relatively little bearing on this, as much effect as it had in other ways.

If you wish to attack the idea of the nation-state, you would do well not to blame it for things it did not directly cause. Of course, if your posts concerning Central America were only in response to something I said that was only a tertiary issue at best, we should probably drop it and move on to more productive and central topics in our discussion.

I am beginning to think that mixing history with our political discussion was a mistake. Perhaps we should get back to figuring the odds in the Hummel von Salza confrontation?