How did the English annex half the world?

Toby Take a Bow

ejmaztec wrote: »

In the case of the Spanish, they forgot to kill all of the natives, but then probably thought that the remainder would be a source of slave labour for the descendants of the conquerors.

I think it may be a little more complicated than 'forgetting' to kill the natives.

ejmaztec wrote: »

As for the US, I think it was long independent from Britain when they decided to put the natives in their place.

I think the natives in America were more organised than the natives elsewhere, or at least they weren't wiped out initially probably due to relatively fewer amounts of colonisers arriving in the early days. The British administration did try and wipe out who they could when they thought it would benefit their position, but used treaties if this couldn't be attained. As for the American government, as far as I know, they only had proper authority over what we now know as the USA in the mid to late 19th century. And even still there were things like the 'long march' used instead of out-and-out genocide.

conor.hogan.2

Fratton Fred wrote: »

In a lot of cases there was no one to treat worse because the Spanish had either wiped them out or enslaved them.

And brought some back to Spain to college. There was bad on both sides. But looking back I know who I would have preferred to have been colonized by (obviously neither, but the British (outside of these islands) were the worst imo).

Really the Spanish wiped out pretty much everyone? Even where they had no colonies before? Please stop with the nonsense.

dpe

Cool Mo D wrote: »

Then how come ex-Spanish colonies have descendants of European settlers and native peoples living together side-by-side, and English colonies like Canada and the USA eradicated the original dwellers from any halfway valuable piece of land, and have them living in either barely inhabitable wastelands, or tiny reservations?

You kind of answer your own question; the North American colonisation experience was all about land; huge numbers of immigrants from Europe, all in search of land, so they quickly came to overwhelm the indigenous population by force of numbers. "Sharing" wasn't an option in North America.

ejmaztec wrote: »

In the case of the Spanish, they forgot to kill all of the natives, but then probably thought that the remainder would be a source of slave labour for the descendants of the conquerors.

Its not a matter of "forgot", the simple fact is there were far, far, more natives in South and Central America than there were in North America, and the Spanish didn't colonise in the same way as the English did in North America; the Spanish were there for resources, not to colonise (mainly) so the "native" population always outnumbered the Spaniards and the natives themselves were a resource. Even after the populations were decimated by disease, there were still plenty of people (pre-Columbian Mexico city - Tenochtitlan was massive, one of the biggest cities in the world at the time of Cortez' arrival). In the far south, the Spanish experience was more like the English in the north, all about land rather than silver, which is why Argentina (ironically named) is the most "white" part of South America. And the Spanish did completely eradicate loads of tribes, the Arawak on a lot of the Caribbean islands for example, although their genes still persist in places like Puerto Rico and Cuba.

ejmaztec wrote: »

As for the US, I think it was long independent from Britain when they decided to put the natives in their place.

Not really. The American colonists were already in conflict with London about their treatment of the Indians even before 1776, but as was often the case with the British Empire, the people on the ground made their own rules.

ejmaztec wrote: »

I don't know about the Canadian treatment of the natives.

A bit better than the American experience, but that's only because Canada is so lightly settled anyway.

Fratton Fred

conor.hogan.2 wrote: »

And brought some back to Spain to college. There was bad on both sides. But looking back I know who I would have preferred to have been colonized by (obviously neither, but the British (outside of these islands) were the worst imo).

Really the Spanish wiped out pretty much everyone? Even where they had no colonies before? Please stop with the nonsense.

See above tbh.

Several of the Caribbean islands were empty when the British because the Spanish had already taken the natives as slaves.

ejmaztec

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

I think it may be a little more complicated than 'forgetting' to kill the natives.

dpe wrote: »

Its not a matter of "forgot", the simple fact is there were far, far, more natives in South and Central America than there were in North America, and the Spanish didn't colonise in the same way as the English did in North America; the Spanish were there for resources, not to colonise (mainly) so the "native" population always outnumbered the Spaniards and the natives themselves were a resource. Even after the populations were decimated by disease, there were still plenty of people (pre-Columbian Mexico city - Tenochtitlan was massive, one of the biggest cities in the world at the time of Cortez' arrival). In the far south, the Spanish experience was more like the English in the north, all about land rather than silver, which is why Argentina (ironically named) is the most "white" part of South America. And the Spanish did completely eradicate loads of tribes, the Arawak on a lot of the Caribbean islands for example, although their genes still persist in places like Puerto Rico and Cuba.

I went for the AH cynical approach on the Spanish treatment of the natives.

dpe wrote: »

Not really. The American colonists were already in conflict with London about their treatment of the Indians even before 1776, but as was often the case with the British Empire, the people on the ground made their own rules.

The vast majority of mistreament of the natives happened after American independence, because this was when the whole of what became the US had been settled coast to coast. Pre 1776 events were nothing compared to what happened afterwards.

I saw a recent documentary mentioning that the annihilation of the native indians' main food source i.e. the bison, was intentionally carried out so that the indians would no longer be able to follow the herds and trespass on land grabbed by the settlers. This reason isn't mentioned on the following webpage, where they blame the railway companies, killing bison to prevent damage to the rail network.

http://www.ypte.org.uk/animal/bison-american-/54

The American bison was once one of the most abundant hoofed animals living in the New World. It has been estimated that even in the year 1800, there were probably more than 60 million bison roaming the prairies of North America, feeding entirely on grasses and gradually migrating from north to south as winter approached

By 1889 there were just 541 bison left alive in the whole of North America! Humans had succeeded in wiping out nearly 60 million bison in under ninety years! The species was saved from the abyss of extinction by an act of Congress

Doc Ruby

Edmund: Yes, that was a bit of a nasty one -- ten thousand Dwatushi warriors armed to the teeth with kiwi fruit and guava halves. After the battle, instead of taking prisoners, we simply made a huge fruit salad. No, when I joined up, I never imagined anything as awful as this war.

I'd had fifteen years of military experience, perfecting the art of ordering a pink gin and saying "Do you do it doggy-doggy?" in Swahili, and then suddenly four-and-a-half million heavily armed Germans hove into view. That was a shock, I can tell you.

/thread

Toby Take a Bow

Fratton Fred wrote: »

See above tbh.

Several of the Caribbean islands were empty when the British because the Spanish had already taken the natives as slaves.

It's easier to wipe out populations in smaller islands than on the mainlands. I don't think you're comparing like with like. I think there were similar issues with islands around the coast of America in the early days of colonisation. At least I can't think of any lasting populations surviving on the east coast in the early days of British rule there.

Pottler

Ruthlesness and cunning, both with their own and towards all others. If you send your young men to their deaths in sufficent numbers, eventually you prevail. "You" being the British Aristocracy, who are very polite and outwardly nice, but are ultimatly (still), cnuts. Their decline occured because cnutishness became less and less acceptable and less and less accepted. They are still quietly cnutish though, re their arms dealing and foreign "wars".

Doc Ruby

Pottler wrote: »

Ruthlesness and cunning Gatling guns and field howitzers

FTFY.

Seriously the british "empire" was a fifty-year farce run by idiots not fit to manage a fish stand.

Pottler wrote: »

Their decline occured because cnutishness became less and less acceptable and less and less accepted. Their decline occured because the natives figured out which was the business end of a rifle.

dpe

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

It's easier to wipe out populations in smaller islands than on the mainlands. I don't think you're comparing like with like. I think there were similar issues with islands around the coast of America in the early days of colonisation. At least I can't think of any lasting populations surviving on the east coast in the early days of British rule there.

Tribes like the Choctaw assimilated with the European settlers, others like the Seminole ended up being pushed further and further west, but once again its not a like for like thing because the numbers were so different; the highest estimate for the population of all of North America before Columbus was about 18m (the lowest is as low 2m, but this seems unlikely), so the waves and waves of English, Dutch and French arrivals, even in the 17th century, had a massive impact on North American tribes.

In the Caribbean, it wasn't that easier to wipe out populations (the Arawak and the Caribs were actually pretty mobile, and like Polynesians, didn't restrict themselves to living on one island), it was just that the process started earlier; the diseases that did for maybe 80% of all of the peoples of the Americas, first took hold in the Caribbean and spread from there.

Thing is; its difficult to imagine a scenario where contact between Europeans (or Asians) and native Americans could have turned out differently; it was the disease running ahead of the colonists that won the continent for them, far more than guns and technology. But even if Columbus had turned around and never returned, the damage was already done, and other contacts were inevitable (hell, maybe the Vikings had already got the epidemic ball rolling even earlier). Any kind of contact was ultimately doom for the native Americans.

Pottler

Doc Ruby wrote: »

FTFY.

Seriously the british "empire" was a fifty-year farce run by idiots not fit to manage a fish stand.

Tend to agree Doc, but they were ruthless idiots. They still are. I was born there btw. I may or may not be a ruthless idiot. Plenty would say I was. It's the Brit in me your Honour..

dsmythy

For the same reason the United States has dominated recently and how China will probably do the same in the future.

mike65

marienbad wrote: »

Lets not forget the Normans and William of Orange .

was invited in to deal with a little local difficulty.

http://www.jacobite.ca/documents/16880630.htm

conor.hogan.2

mike65 wrote: »

was invited in do deal with a little local difficulty.

http://www.jacobite.ca/documents/16880630.htm

Ah the old "ah shure weren't they asked to come" a cousin of the "ah shure the pope gave it to them".

He did not just stroll in to a cheering crowd.

mike65

I'm not even "shure" what the hell you're trying to say.

Toby Take a Bow

mike65 wrote: »

I'm not even "shure" what the hell you're trying to say.

I guess that because someone invites a person to 'deal with a little difficulty' doesn't mean that the whole population was lining the streets to welcome him into the country.

Toby Take a Bow

dpe wrote: »

In the Caribbean, it wasn't that easier to wipe out populations (the Arawak and the Caribs were actually pretty mobile, and like Polynesians, didn't restrict themselves to living on one island), it was just that the process started earlier; the diseases that did for maybe 80% of all of the peoples of the Americas, first took hold in the Caribbean and spread from there.

That's interesting (but makes sense, I guess) that the populations wouldn't have viewed the one island as their own island and would've moved around. I read somewhere that Haiti and the Bermudas suffered disproportionately in terms of their population being absolutely decimated. I guess maybe some of them fled to other islands, although the accounts I read suggested that many fled in to the interior and were eventually hunted/captured and sold in to slavery.

Cool Mo D

mike65 wrote: »

was invited in to deal with a little local difficulty.

http://www.jacobite.ca/documents/16880630.htm

William of Orange was not invited, he invaded. He invaded England to stop James II allying with France, which threatened the independent Netherlands, of which he was head of state.

The English nobility at the time were quite happy to replace a Catholic absolute monarch with a Protestant restrained by parliament however, so when James II fled London, they rallied around William, and installed him on the throne. It was not pre-planned though, more a case of taking advantage of circumstances.

marienbad

mike65 wrote: »

was invited in to deal with a little local difficulty.

http://www.jacobite.ca/documents/16880630.htm[/QUOTE]


As were the Normans here- invasion nevertheless.

longhalloween

Gun beats spear

ejmaztec

marienbad wrote: »

As were the Normans here- invasion nevertheless.

There's definitely a pattern developing here. A few big knobs invite people into Ireland and they forget to leave. It used to be armies and more recently armies of construction workers.:pac:

paddyandy

They seriously understood discipline and unity of purpose .They are good listeners too .

golden lane

it wasn't the english empire.....it was the british empire........

Fratton Fred

golden lane wrote: »

it wasn't the english empire.....it was the british empire........

yes. it wasn't really until Scotland and England united that the empire really took off.

the Scots were a lot better at it than the English (with the exception of a minor **** up in Panama) but needed finance, which the English had plenty of. Add in a few Irish and Welsh soldiers and you have a force to be reckoned with.

wonton

Fratton Fred wrote: »

yes. it wasn't really until Scotland and England united that the empire really took off.

the Scots were a lot better at it than the English (with the exception of a minor **** up in Panama) but needed finance, which the English had plenty of. Add in a few Irish and Welsh soldiers and you have a force to be reckoned with.

I remember reading before that something like 40% of the brittish army in india was actually irish.

conor.hogan.2

63.4% of statistics are made up.

Although that figure would not be far considering the time and how you counted. Either way it dropped very fast closer and closer to the beginning of the 20th century.

golden lane

Fratton Fred wrote: »

yes. it wasn't really until Scotland and England united that the empire really took off.

the Scots were a lot better at it than the English (with the exception of a minor **** up in Panama) but needed finance, which the English had plenty of. Add in a few Irish and Welsh soldiers and you have a force to be reckoned with.

and a few thousand hessians........


the panama job...was just the leftovers from a jumble sale........

Mance Rayder

Ush1 wrote: »

How do you mean?

Surely there was a point when we seperated, split islands and they soared ahead and we were twiddlin' our thumbs?

These Islands were populated by waves of tribes, some were more advanced than others. "Civilisation" spread to England long before it was 'Bestowed' on us savage b*stards. The Romans brought a continent of technology and advances to England. The Scots and the Irish remained largely tribal at the time. Running around bogs naked and off our faces on mushrooms, Sacrificing children and whatnot. The English got a head start and when the Roman empire collapsed they carried on trying to 'Civilize' these islands by containing and controlling the barbaric Celts. Of course it got out of hand and they made a Royal arse of it but hey, that's another story.

Conall Cernach

wonton wrote: »

I remember reading before that something like 40% of the brittish army in india was actually irish.

The British Army was considered to be beneath many English people who preferred the glamour of the navy and service in India was considered beneath those who did join. Look at how Cardigan treated his "Indian" officers in the Hussars. The general opinion was that they were somehow less gentlemanly for having served there. With a booming economy in England it meant that the Army was a lot less attractive to English men compared to the likes of the Irish, Scots and Welsh who had more pressing economic reasons for joining up. Add to this the daily rum ration and it was a haven for the unemployed, unskilled and the destitute of whom the Irish made up a considerable percentage throughout the 19th Century. Roughly 20% of Wellington's troops in the Peninsula War were Irish and many others were Scots or Welsh with some German regiments thrown in for the craic.

Nodin

CiscoStudent wrote: »

These Islands were populated by waves of tribes, some were more advanced than others. "Civilisation" spread to England long before it was 'Bestowed' on us savage b*stards. The Romans brought a continent of technology and advances to England. The Scots and the Irish remained largely tribal at the time. Running around bogs naked and off our faces on mushrooms, Sacrificing children and whatnot. The English got a head start and when the Roman empire collapsed they carried on trying to 'Civilize' these islands by containing and controlling the barbaric Celts. Of course it got out of hand and they made a Royal arse of it but hey, that's another story.

That 1870 Edition Encyclopedia Britanica never gets old, does it.

Mance Rayder

Nodin wrote: »

That 1870 Edition Encyclopedia Britanica never gets old, does it.

I take it you subscribe to a different version of history then? Perhaps you could enlighten us?

goodie2shoes

Divide & Conquer.

Get the locals arguing amongst themselves about some issue or other, and they wont notice when you're picking their pockets.
Worked a treat until the rest of us (some more quickly than others) copped onto it and told them to bog off home.

Nodin

CiscoStudent wrote: »

I take it you subscribe to a different version of history then? Perhaps you could enlighten us?

Yours is so simplistic its rather hard to know where to start.

The general notion of here being 'backward" and "the English got a head start and when the Roman empire collapsed they carried on trying to 'Civilize' these islands by containing and controlling the barbaric Celts" perhaps

The achievements of insular art, in illuminated manuscripts like the Book of Kells, high crosses, and metalwork like the Ardagh Chalice remain very well known, and in the case of manuscript decoration had a profound influence on Western medieval art.[28] The manuscripts were certainly produced by and for monasteries, and the evidence suggests that metalwork was produced in both monastic and royal workshops, perhaps as well as secular commercial ones.[29] Irish monks also founded monasteries across the continent, exerting influence greater than many more ancient continental centres.[30] The first issuance of a papal privilege granting a monastery freedom from episcopal oversight was that of Pope Honorius I to Bobbio Abbey, one of Columbanus's institutions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_Christianity

You've never heard of the "golden age" with regard to Ireland from say 600 AD to about 900 AD? The whole "saints and scholars" lark?

Logical Fallacy

CiscoStudent wrote: »

These Islands were populated by waves of tribes, some were more advanced than others. "Civilisation" spread to England long before it was 'Bestowed' on us savage b*stards. The Romans brought a continent of technology and advances to England. The Scots and the Irish remained largely tribal at the time. Running around bogs naked and off our faces on mushrooms, Sacrificing children and whatnot. The English got a head start and when the Roman empire collapsed they carried on trying to 'Civilize' these islands by containing and controlling the barbaric Celts. Of course it got out of hand and they made a Royal arse of it but hey, that's another story.

As far as I am aware there is no record or indication of human sacrifice in Ireland at any point.

Fratton Fred

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

As far as I am aware there is no record or indication of human sacrifice in Ireland at any point.

You've obviously never been to Cavan.

dpe

CiscoStudent wrote: »

I take it you subscribe to a different version of history then? Perhaps you could enlighten us?

I think if you spoke to the average Romano-Britain fending off waves of pagan Saxons around AD500, they'd probably take issue with your "head start" idea. And even before that, don't assume that because Romans were cracking engineers they had a higher level of "civilisation" than the peoples outside the Empire; it was rather less clear cut than that.

Gyalist

When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said "Let us pray." We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land. - Archbishop Desmond Tutu

A policy that continues today by the West using NGOs as the Trojan Horse to impose neo-liberalist policies and steal the resources of developing countries.