If whites had stayed in Europe and never moved, the world today would be a much different(and better) place. It's safe to say they couldn't see the advances in technology that has caused problems and potential problems, but even in the 1600's I think they could see the possibilities. If I could turn back time, I would have done everything to make sure Plymouth never happened and the America's would still be occupied by a decent Indian population and not by whites. What are your thoughts on Plymouth? Has it been good for the world or bad for the world?
US Plymouth
- Thread starter rainforests1
- Start date
Whites?
As far as Plymouth, neither good nor bad, inevitable, if the Europeans didn't come here to expand some one else would have. IMO it's human nature to expand, war and take over others territory. Native Americans weren't immune from this either. Granted I would have loved to be able to see this land 300-400 years ago before it got developed.
As far as Plymouth, neither good nor bad, inevitable, if the Europeans didn't come here to expand some one else would have. IMO it's human nature to expand, war and take over others territory. Native Americans weren't immune from this either. Granted I would have loved to be able to see this land 300-400 years ago before it got developed.
kibbleforlola
Lola Worshiper
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2012
- Reaction score
- 2,597
Well, if you knew absolutely anything about American History, you would know that Plymouth was not first contact.
But we gotta hate on them Protestant types, don't we?
But we gotta hate on them Protestant types, don't we?
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2012
- Reaction score
- 19,521
- Age
- 65
- Location
- I'm liek, in Cali, dude.
- Lifestyle
- Vegetarian
Yes, if the Mayflower hadn't sailed in 1620, it would have sailed in 1720. The Europeans, knowing of the Americas, would not have left the two continents and outlying islands unconquered for long.
Europeans and Indians are generally the two groups throughout history that have moved great distances. Other groups generally don't move when you consider human history is hundreds of thousands of years old. The Indian way of life was much less destructive than Europeans, so I don't have a problem with Indians moving long distances(as long as their population didn't grow too much).
I've read books on US history. Either Plymouth or the Columbus voyage are considered the start of US history. I haven't seen anything else mentioned as far as the American origin is concerned.
ledboots
Peace
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Augustine,_Florida
"St. Augustine (Spanish: San Agustín) is a city in Northeast Florida and the oldest continuously occupied European-established settlement and port in the continental United States.[4]
The county seat of St. Johns County,[5] it is part of Florida's First Coast region and the Jacksonville metropolitan area. According to the 2010 census, the city population was 12,975.
San Agustín was founded in September 1565 by Spanish admiral Pedro Menéndez de Avilés, and subsequently served as the capital of Spanish Florida for two hundred years."
yakherder
老外
Civilization was alive and well (and murderous and expansive) in South America and Mexico even as the smaller tribes we think of as natives lived their lives just a short distance to the north. The tribal way of life was condemned the day the first group of people figured out how to plant a seed, and thus necessitated the need for new concepts like personal property and resource control. Some just managed to hold out longer than others. It wasn't that long ago, in the grand scheme of things, that the Germanic tribes from which I descended were more or less going through the same thing: Getting annihilated by technologically superior and better organized European powers like the Romans.
If you want to stop the flood that is civilization, you'll need to stack your sandbags a lot farther back than a few hundred years.
But for the record, as I've said in other posts before, if it were up to me I'd send the entire world back to pre-stone age. But it's not up to me, so the best we can do is judge our ancestors in hindsight.
If you want to stop the flood that is civilization, you'll need to stack your sandbags a lot farther back than a few hundred years.
But for the record, as I've said in other posts before, if it were up to me I'd send the entire world back to pre-stone age. But it's not up to me, so the best we can do is judge our ancestors in hindsight.
I think we would have seen a happier outcome of the contact between Native Americans and Europeans if the Europeans had managed to travel to the New World earlier when they had less of a technological and military advantage. Then they would have been more like equals, so war would have seemed as a less desirable option, and trade, exchange of technology and peaceful relations would have been preferred.
So maybe if the natives hadn't been so unkind to the Norse explorers, then history could have been much kinder to the native peoples as well.
So maybe if the natives hadn't been so unkind to the Norse explorers, then history could have been much kinder to the native peoples as well.
I'm not sure "annihilated" is the term I would use. Roman expansion to the north came to a halt precisely because of the Germanic tribes, and Germanic tribes were instrumental in the downfall of the Western Roman empire, if memory serves me right. When the Romans retreated from Britain, it was Germanic tribes (Angles, Saxons and others) who moved in and took over.
The Romans and the Germanic tribes were at a much more equal technological level than Europeans and Native Americans. Therefore the Germanic tribes fared much better than did the Native Americans.
yakherder
老外
Blobbenstein
.......
The most recent book I read about US history didn't even mention St. Augustine. Why does Plymouth receive so much more attention? If this is true, I'm against St. Augustine just as much as I am against Plymouth. It should never have happened.
kibbleforlola
Lola Worshiper
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2012
- Reaction score
- 2,597
There's a whole lot of "noble savage"-ing going on in this thread. Gross, y'all.
Also, it doesn't matter what kind of weapons the Europeans had or didn't have. There would still have been the germ exchange, which killed far more people than any gun or horse ever did. We gave them smallpox, they gave us syphilis. Both proved deadly to bodies who had never built up an immunity, but smallpox more so.
Also, it doesn't matter what kind of weapons the Europeans had or didn't have. There would still have been the germ exchange, which killed far more people than any gun or horse ever did. We gave them smallpox, they gave us syphilis. Both proved deadly to bodies who had never built up an immunity, but smallpox more so.
ledboots
Peace
Well, I live in Tampa and know that de Soto landed at Tampa Bay in 1539. The Catholic Spanish converted thousands of Indians of various tribes, especially the Timucua.
The concept may be somewhat flawed, but the "noble savage" posts here seems pretty innocent to me. Care to elaborate?
While germs may have killed more, I'm pretty confident the weapons did indeed matter. We would have seen quite different North and South Americas today if the natives had similar weapons and technology to the Europeans.
