I think otherwise and I don't feel ignorant or evil, thank you. (no I don't think colonialism or imperialism was good or morally neutral either, it was mostly bad)Yes. The answer is literally yes, they all did beyond reprehensible damages to every people they touched and to claim otherwise is ignorance at best and "well meaning" malevolence at worst.
The poll is not about "which country had the worst episode of cruelness or evil" it's about each country's general impact, so if country X colonized 2 places and did something really bad in 1 another country Y that colonized 10 places but did something very very bad in 1(worse than country X) would you say that the latter had overall the worst impact in general?What's the point of questions like these though? They were all bad for the natives. It's like asking what's worse slavery or the holocaust? They were both horrible events,and to put one as worse than the other just diminishes the legitimate suffering of the victims of the other tragedy.
How is this significantly different?This is significantly different from the generalizations like "the only good injun is a dead injun" of the US variety etc.
I added the Nazis as their plan for eastern europe was to basically make it a german colony
The idea that some people would put the US as the first spot is baffling, I guess everyone's entitled to their opinion though.
I can name medium sized wars that claimed more lives than all US massacres or deportations throughout the 18 and 19th centuries combined.Well, considering how they threated natives, it is pretty understandable altough Americans weren't worst among colonial powers.
I can name medium sized wars that claimed more lives than all US massacres or deportations throughout the 18 and 19th centuries combined.
Yes but please compare it against %of the population for each group affected and if those groups today are in control of their traditional lands.Okay then, name them.
The American civil war is no small conflict but it had many times the casualty figures for virtually all recorded massacres and deportations, you could take any famous 17th to 19th century conflict in Europe for the same result.Okay then, name them.
What so if someone somewhere kills the last man of a tribe he is worse than all colonial empires that ever existed? Using a purely relative metric makes no sense.Yes but please compare it against %of the population for each group affected and if those groups today are in control of their traditional lands.
Yes but please compare it against %of the population for each group affected and if those groups today are in control of their traditional lands.
There are more mestizo and natives in the Spanish colonies because there were more to begin with, do you seriously believe that Mexico, a country which had 10-20 million natives in 1520, would end up having the same ethnic composition to the US, which average estimations don't go higher than 5 million? Plus the US today has 2-3 times more people than Mexico.When it comes to the Americas the US takes the lead easily.
Despite all the atrocities of the Spanish a large portion of their former holdings retain a noticiable % of people who have indigenous ancestry which has permeated into the national culture.
In the US the Native Americans have been almost completely decimated, too the point of making up less than 2% of the entire population. And still to this day are the group worst effected by drug abuse, poverty, and lack of political representation.
Spain might have toppled empires, killed millions in mines and plantations, but the mestizos have survived, even large swaths of indigenous have.
In the US the people who lived here before colonialism have all been killed, displaced and tucked away in the worst parcels of land this country has to offer.
If that's your measurement then the Spanish were waaaay worse.
The American civil war is no small conflict but it had many times the casualty figures for virtually all recorded massacres and deportations, you could take any famous 17th to 19th century conflict in Europe for the same result.
Filipinos are not native Americans, I was talking about them and so were others apparently.Well some estimates have put the numbers of Filipino civilians killed in the Philippines-American War at the end of the 19th Century as as high as 1 million, already covering most of the casualties of the Civil War (about 1.6-1.8 million people) but even if we take away the 250,000 estimated to have died to cholera that's around 750,000 people still as well as a hell of a lot of massacres (read Francia's 'A History of the Philippines' for his account of American atrocities in the Philippines-American War).
The French stance with regards to its American colonies was pretty benign. It was rather brutal in Indochina - but less so than the Japanese when they came - and while its attempts at assimilation in Africa were unpleasant, it was nowhere as bad as the Belgians or Germans.Wow, almost no one voted for France.
They seemed to be trying to stop said bad habits near the end. One of the causes of the american revolution was British attempts to stop the colonies from crossing theThey also let the Thirteen colonies gain bad habits that would stay on the US.
They seemed to be trying to stop said bad habits near the end. One of the causes of the american revolution was British attempts to stop the colonies from crossing the Appalachian mountains.