who was the LEAST nasty imperialist overlord?

UK
france
spain
portugal
germany
russia
japan
china
turkey
the netherlands
USA
poland (ask the lithuanians or the ukrainians, if you don't believe me)
israel (hush yer mouths, likudniks)

as of now, my vote will probably go with the turks (at least in their ottoman period).

actually i'd go for us and uk

their actions have often been backed up by an ideology, not pure cruelty

although its record is being tarnished day by day, i guess israel also has much justification historically for its actons

exactly ... after yer post, i thought "wow, if there are any armenians here they would FLAY me alive for saying the ottomans."

another one i forgot ... the austro-hungarians. the habsburgs were relatively benign as far as imperialist dynasties go (though i'm sure that some yugoslavians would strongly disagree) -- better them than the germans or the russians, anyway.

What was the empire that allowed Christians to visit the Holy Land?

umn, did you read ANYTHING in this thread?

Others for consideration

Mongolians: brutal in conquest picked up civilization on the way
Mughals: decedents of the above, decadent and corrupt at the end but great art
Asoka: Brutal, found the buddah, brought law and order to india
Carloginians: First real empire in europe after the romans
Persian: several editions of
Babylonians
Egytians:
Zulus
Moors
Hitites
NormanMinoans
Maya
Aztec
Manchurians
Tibetan

On the whole empires go through better and worse stages the british was best as a trading empire in the late 18th and early 19th century before the 'white man's burden' stage, the turks were at the hight of tolerance and culture during the middle ages etc.

Although considered barbaric today, the Islamic civilization
was quite progressive in it's heydey.
The empire that emerged in the centuries after
Mohammeds death was VERY enlightened for it's time. In fact,
the various Muslim regimes were far more tolerant and free
then the Christian states. And generally speaking, they did not
force their religion on others at swordpoint;
they were often seen as liberators and this is what spurred
their growth.

Ironically, when the first crusaders reached Jerusalem to
"free" it from the infidel, there were many Christians already
living there! Many of them probably got killed by their own
"brethren" in the general slaughter.

The US and the UK committed incredible sins against indigenous
people and imperial serfs alike. Nevertheless, and not by way
of excuse, they were far outstripped in brutality by many other
imperialists.

While were on the topic, many people don't realize just how
evil the Stalin's regime was; he made Hitler look reasonable
and humane. But history hates a loser, so Hitler is considered
the worst of the worst. Then there's Mao, who is actually seen
by some as a kind of flawed visionary, despite an incredible
legacy of mayhem and desecration.

It survived, in divied form, for the next two hundred years.
In any case, what bearing does it have on the thread question?
The 'winner' to this thread will be a country who invaded somewhere else for five minutes, perhaps for altruistic reasons.

Just ask the Maccabees.

Huh? Except for that whole annihilation of an entire indigenous peoples thing, right? The genocide of the American Indians was equal to anything in history.

I don't think there was actually much genocide. Over 90% of the Native American population was killed by diseases brought over to which they had no resistance, rather than as a result of a deliberate slaughter.

Nevermind the American Indians, the ones in newfieland were the first and possibly only to be killed off completely down to the last one. Story has it one woman escaped and died of old age childless.

But even if the 90% number were correct (I don't believe it is, as the Spanish had 300 years of colonial power without the entire population dying off, the US had significant numbers of American Indians well into the 19th century), how are diseases introduced by Europeans in the process of conquest not their fault?

Even more recent, I think -- like mid-70s.

xxxxxpost

For the sake of argument, though, you think 'accidental genocide' is OK, so long as you don't do it on purpose? WTF?

then, there were other nasty colonial practices that cut down on the native populations -- namely, slavery (which is why the europeans started bringing in african slaves -- they were killing off the native americans through overwork), alcohol, arming rival tribes, etc.

"PC awe of genocide"!?!? You know, if there's one thing you wackjobs can't blame on political correctness, I'd think "awe of genocide" might be it.

But let's look at it:

- European setllers were directly responsible for the introduction of diseases that killed millions of American Indians. Intent is irrelevant, if not for the European desires for conquest, the diseases don't spread and kill.
- In numerous cases, settlers purposely took full advantage of these diseases (smallpox-blankets, alcoholism) for their own gain
- In addition to questions of how American Indians died, fulfilled every other aspect of "genocide," in their attempts to break apart and destroy American Indian cultures.
- oh, and hey, guess we shouldn't forget the millions who were killed and enslaved outside of 'quirks of biology,' right?

Under any definition you want to go by, the treatment of American Indians qualifies.

But, as Eisbar (and I) noted, it started out unintentional - but still fully the Europeans fault and became intentional when they realized that it could be taken advantage of.

Which other cultures came-a-conquerin' in the Western Hemisphere in the last millenium? It was a European(-descended) desire for conquest that led to the demise of the American Indian.

Trying to excuse European actions in the Americas as part of some universal human condition is the worst kind of moral relativism and political correctness.

That's pretty specious reasoning. How many other cultures were even logistically capable of such a thing? In all of history what culture has NOT tried to expand its land holdings?

Your segregation of "modern enlightened humans - us" and "savage
killers of the past" is unrealistic and unhistorical. There were
individuals alive and vocal during all phases of history who
fought for peace, cooperation and understanding among peoples.
You cannot excuse past generations (and by rejecting "pure
condemnation" you are indeed excusing them. their evil activities
should indeed be purely condemned, although that should not be
the extent of our study) by saying that they were merely following
the norm. Every society, every generation has it's moderates and
thinkers. Despite the misconceptions of some, our modern era
has no monopoly on enlightened thinking, far from it. Moral
progress can not be said to occur.

Well. First off I did no such thing. A cursory glance around the world shows us invasions, mini-wars, acts of terrorism, states in crisis etc. So to a large extent we are still living through "history" as I defined it. But the period from 1945 to the present is (excluding Yugoslavia/Kosovo) the longest period of peace in Europe, the period of greatest harmony, prosperity and cooperation since forever. Yes I know I'm Eurocentric. But we are discussing Imperialism after all. It's the legacy of philosophers, artists, statesmen etc. that's got us to this point, where we can be fairly certain that the major powers in Europe are not going to engage in ruinous wars over a disputed duchy or sectarian religious fever. The men posting here are unlikely to perish on a continental battlefield. We no longer regard our differences as more important than our similarities. That's advance, no? So essentially I am agreeing with you we are essentially standing on the shoulders of giants. We are 'savage killers' (your definition) tamed by reason.
A mixture of condemnation and understanding is necessary. We're judging ourselves, the contents of our head and soul. That's no facile task. Although I've used the word upthread, 'evil' is not helpful in this context. It doesn't help us to understand fear, suspicion, greif, resentment, all emotional reactions implicated in human beings committing 'evil acts'. This is the basis of much art and dialectical philosohy since the enlightenment. I would maintain that progress has been made. What's intersting is you saying that I'm calling people in the past 'savage killers' whilst 'excusing their crimes'. Erm, how can I be doing both?
As for your other points, I'll engage with them if I have time today, following no doubt a ridicule-infused post from you in response to this one.

erm as i said i'll keep it with mine, though thanks for asking

In other words, for the Nazis to 'take power' required them to ban and arrest opposition political parties, stage terrorist acts, intimidate 'allies' and foes with the SA, and ultimately suspend the Weimar Constitution completely.

This is not, by any stretch of the concept, being "voted into power" by means of democratic election. Hence "factually inaccurate bordering on the ridiculous."

However this doesn't change for me your stubborn refusal to answer the thread question. Why don't you try that?
Because I've never been responding to the thread question. I was responding to the assertion that the US/UK really weren't so bad and later your attempts to minimize North American genocide as not living up to the standards of the Holocaust or Stalin's purges (which I agree with - North America far surpasses either).

The GOLD STANDARD OF MORALITY and compassion and whatever else you've been rambling on about - well, I don't know where it's coming from.

Haha, good one - "emotive response." Obviously I'm opposed to writing off the genocide as "historical phenomena" because a tiny bit of Cherokee blood that's several generations past! A winner is you!

The press ask State Department spokeswoman Christine Shelly whether genocide is happening. Her response carefully tries to avoid the word: "…we have to undertake a very careful study before we can make a final kind of determination…."

Day 21
Estimated Death Toll: 168,000

Purposeful decimation of a population, forced removal, breaking up of cultures, destroying religions, etc. etc. etc.

Or we can follow the UN's def.

"The convention defines genocide as any act committed with the idea of destroying in whole or in part a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. This includes such acts as:

* Killing members of the group
* Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
* Deliberately inflicting conditions calculated to physically destroy the group (the whole group or even part of the group)
* Forcefully transferring children of the group to another group"

Finally.

The Nazis bullied and blackmailed their way into power.
But they needed those votes. They got in at least partly through the system. There's no point trying to deny that.

'Because I've never been responding to the thread question. I was responding to the assertion that the US/UK really weren't so bad and later your attempts to minimize North American genocide as not living up to the standards of the Holocaust or Stalin's purges (which I agree with - North America far surpasses either).'

Well there we go. Final break away achieved. I take what you're saying seriously, don't worry about that, but I don't agree with it. Maybe I neeed to be educated. I'm going to bone up on my knowledge of this area. It's a shame you had to argue so kakhandedly. Like....

'Haha, good one - "emotive response." Obviously I'm opposed to writing off the genocide as "historical phenomena" because a tiny bit of Cherokee blood that's several generations past! A winner is you!'

.....this. You've actually put a two word phrase in quotes that...get this...I NEVER ACTUALLY USED. I was being absolutely sincere, not mocking in any way. I was NOT intimating that your heritage/blood was a barrier to reasoned debate on your part, I was wondering infact whether I wasn't taking seriously enough a subject that you'd suddenly revealed had personal import to you (but clearly not as much as I thought). It was, believe it or not, a humble gesture. Get me talking about my race, and, certainly I'll be passionate - whyever not?

You're a cold fish Milo. "It's not comfortable and it's not going to help you out socially."

I think many such acts were committed and resulted in many dead native Americans. There were also non-deliberate acts perpetrated by Europeans/Americans that resulted in many dead native Americans. Which acts had the greates negative impact on native Americans? Who knows? It's really doesn't matter, IMO. Like I said earlier, maybe the reality of what occurred in the Americas was't as 'neat', if you will, as the word genocide implies.

The Nazis bullied and blackmailed their way into power.
But they needed those votes. They got in at least partly through the system. There's no point trying to deny that.
Haha, "well, I was wrong, but, uh they used the system!"

Given another few years of the German depression, the Nazis might not have needed even the veneer of democratic activity to take part (threats by the Nazis and their allies to simply overthrow Hindenburg and the Weimar govt. by force got Hitler installed as Chancellor in the first place, when he never would have been selected otherwise).

Well there we go. Final break away achieved. I take what you're saying seriously, don't worry about that, but I don't agree with it. Maybe I neeed to be educated. I'm going to bone up on my knowledge of this area. It's a shame you had to argue so kakhandedly.

Nothing I've said has changed from first post to last. What I've taken is a very simple position, and responded to people attempting to minimize what happened over five centuries in North America.

Oops, it does matter. You were one of the people going on about 'intent' - how the Europeans destroyed millions of lives and hundreds of cultures, but they didn't really mean to. When you look at the actions and the history, it's hard to argue that it wasn't genocide. And that erases all questions of intent.

'Haha, "well, I was wrong, but, uh they used the system!"'

Like I said before you seem unable to debate. You're a fuckin baby.
Good luck dude! I am finished. with. you.
I hope you laugh to yourself all night.

why does it matter? what changes if we go from saying it wasn't genocide to saying that it was? if europeans are fully to blame and intended to exterminate them, what should be done about it? (not rhetorical)
I don't think anything changes. But I wasn't the one arguing that 'intent' gives Europeans an excuse, you know?

What should be done about it? Nothing. I haven't seen any call in this thread for action to be taken against any "imperialist overlord." Why would you even bring this up?

I bring it up because you say it matters. Why does it matter?

Okay so I said it was over but I have to just address this.
Why is this something to be proud of? This thread is a DEBATE.
People trying to persuade others of their ideas, listening to their responses, evolving their perceptions gradually and coming to intermittent conclusions. You are a monolith of blinkered ideology.
You do not will not change nomatterwhat. If someone disagrees you ridicule and laugh at them. You can't accept other people have other positions. I believe your position is just as valid as mine. You do not think that about me or anyone else. You're juvenile.
I have noproblemwhatsoever admitting to a change in my beliefs or understanding. For you that would be a blow to your self esteem.

Absolute trash you dishonest character. Sort yourself out. Ughh.

I bring it up because you say it matters. Why does it matter?
It doesn't matter to me. I didn't argue 'intent,' remember? But if you're going to deny European culpability based on intent, then the applicability of genocide becomes important.

***
Why is this something to be proud of? This thread is a DEBATE.
Well, no, this thread is a joke gone horribly wrong.

But I'm more than willing to engage in an exchange of ideas and modify my position if given a reason to. If anyone can show evidence as to how the decimation of the American Indian population wasn't genocide and that it wasn't the Europeans' fault, I'll be glad to hear it.

But no one's shown that. Pointing out that other cultures have done horrific things doesn't cut it.

milo where have you read about the blankets infected w/smallpox etc.? (this is a genuine question, not any kind of challenge.)

You can't just say "OK, the Germans didn't vote them into power, they had to destroy the system completely to take power," you blame it on using the system and how I can't deny that. (Which I, strangely, never indicated that I did.)

That's shuffling your terms and arguments rather than admitting error.

x-post, Amateurist, I've read about them in a couple of books. There are quite a few original documents referring to smallpox transmission dating from the mid-18th century.

One, turned up by Google:
This reference is from _American Indian Holocaust and Survival: A
Population History Since 1492_ by Russell Thornton, 1987 (Norman: U. of
Oklahoma Pr.) pp.78-79
"It is also during the eighteenth century that we find written reports of
American Indians being intentionally esposed to smallpox by Europeans. In
1763 in Pennsylvania,
Sir Jeffrey Amherst, commander of the British forces....wrote in
the postscript of a letter to Bouquet the suggestion that smallpox
be sent among the disaffected tribes. Bouquet replied, also in a
postscript, "I will try to innoculate the[m]...with some blankets
that may fall into their hands, and take care not get the disease
myself." ....To Bouquet's postscript, amherst replied, "You will
do well as to try to innoculate the Indians by means of blankets
as well as to try every other method that can serve to extirpate
this exorable race." On June 24, Captain Ecuyer, of the Royal
Americans, noted in his journal: "Out of our regard for them
(i.e. two Indian chiefs) we gave them two blankets and a
handkerchief out of the smallpox hospital. I hope it will have
the desired effect." (quoted from Stearn, E. and Stearn, A.
"Smallpox Immuninzation of the Amerindian." _Bulletin of the
History of Medicine_13:601-13.)

Thornton goes on to report that smallpox spread to the tribes along the
Ohio river."

Of course those arguments serve to limit the blame placed on Europeans. If what they're doing was just another in a long line of human atrocities, how can we blame them?

If that's not the purpose, why even bring the rest of the world into a scenario (North America) where they had no hand? Atrocities throughout history would be irrelevant, no?

That was in reply to your statement about "well no other cultures conquered America". Well, duh. That doesn't mean that Europeans were the only ones who would have done it.

Of course those arguments serve to limit the blame placed on Europeans. If what they're doing was just another in a long line of human atrocities, how can we blame them?

"there's plenty of blame to go around". did you not read that?

That's right. I am unsure, which like I said seems hard for people around here to fathom and tantamount to a cardinal sin. I wanted you to explain why you thought it was genocide, rather than just accept the fact a priori. When you are unsure of a position and you are discussing the issue with someone who has strong beliefs one way or the other, you usually have to argue points for the opposite side. Devil's advocate ring a bell for you?

You telling me to "go do my reading" exhibits my point that ILE is not a place to gain knowledge, just show off your own.